POV question

[Ivonia]

I had a question about Point of View (POV). I generally stick to 3rd person limited, other than the beginning of the novel, where its omniscient (so as to help establish the storyline).

Right now, my POV focuses mainly on the protagonist, although during certain scenes (such as battles), the POV switches around from time to time so that readers can see what some of the more important characters are doing/saying (such as a conversation between two high ranking enemy admirals right before a fight breaks out between them, or the hero's friends protecting civilians from the bad guys a few moments prior to the hero arriving at the scene). I still focus mostly on the hero, but the only "outside POV" that readers see is stuff that's occurring immediately around the hero, not something occurring on the other side of the world (or galaxy in my story).

Can I get away with doing this? Or am I going to have to stick specifically to only the hero's POV (note that I don't want to do first person, as it would get boring pretty fast, since the hero isn't always at the scene of something interesting happening, and he doesn't neccessarily always arrive on time either, for storyline reasons).

[RaptorBpW]

That's perfectly fine. You can switch POV as many times as you like, as long as you're not doing so in the middle of a scene. Third person limited just doesn't work with like that.

So, a POV after a chapter or white-space break? Sure. Go for it. Remember, your goal is to keep it interesting. Keep the pages turning. :)

[Susan Gable]

That's perfectly fine. You can switch POV as many times as you like, as long as you're not doing so in the middle of a scene. Third person limited just doesn't work with like that.

So, a POV after a chapter or white-space break? Sure. Go for it. Remember, your goal is to keep it interesting. Keep the pages turning. :)

Actually, I occasionally do a POV switch mid-scene WITHOUT white space. If the scene continues, I find the white-space indicator to be insulting to me as a reader. If the POV switch is done well, and I'm immediately grounded into the character's head, then I'm fine with it - and so is my editor. Now, I'm against head-hopping, but I don't think one-POV per scene is the only way to go.

So yes, you can have other characer's POVs in your book. Most of my books have at least 3 POVs.

Susan G.

[azbikergirl]

In fact, if you believe some of the How To books, like Jerry Cleaver's Immediate Fiction, we writers owe it to our readers to use whatever POV best suits the scene. Jerry tells us that we should write the scene from the POV of the character having the most intense experience.

[Jamesaritchie]

In fact, if you believe some of the How To books, like Jerry Cleaver's Immediate Fiction, we writers owe it to our readers to use whatever POV best suits the scene. Jerry tells us that we should write the scene from the POV of the character having the most intense experience.

He's may be write, though this still doesn't mean you should switch POV in the middle of a scene, and changing POV too often gets awfully disjointed and confusing.

[Jamesaritchie]

Actually, I occasionally do a POV switch mid-scene WITHOUT white space. If the scene continues, I find the white-space indicator to be insulting to me as a reader. If the POV switch is done well, and I'm immediately grounded into the character's head, then I'm fine with it - and so is my editor. Now, I'm against head-hopping, but I don't think one-POV per scene is the only way to go.

So yes, you can have other characer's POVs in your book. Most of my books have at least 3 POVs.

Susan G.

Different strokes, I guess. I don't see any difference between head-hopping and switching POV in the middle of a scene. That's the definition of head-hopping. This turns any novel into an automatic wall banger for me. It always comes across as the writer taking the lazy way out. When a writer starts switching POV without switching scenes, I immediately switch writers.

[azbikergirl]

He's may be write, though this still doesn't mean you should switch POV in the middle of a scene, and changing POV too often gets awfully disjointed and confusing.
I tend to agree. If we have a darn good reason for switching POVs (to show a more intense bit of action going on with another character), maybe staying in the same scene would work, but maybe starting a new scene would work better. See thread on Switching POV without changing physical setting. :)

[cwfgal]

Different strokes, I guess. I don't see any difference between head-hopping and switching POV in the middle of a scene. That's the definition of head-hopping. This turns any novel into an automatic wall banger for me. It always comes across as the writer taking the lazy way out. When a writer starts switching POV without switching scenes, I immediately switch writers.

I'd have to agree. Switching POVs between chapters is one thing, but doing it mid-scene strikes me as sloppy writing. I always notice it and it jars me out of the flow of the read. At times this kind of head-hopping is a version of telling rather than showing. It's easy to jump from one character's head to another and tell what they are thinking/feeling/etc. It's a bit more difficult to show the same thing from another character's POV, but it generally makes for a more dynamic and satisfying read. It's also the way most of us operate on a day to day level. We can't read other people's thoughts so we are forced to observe and interpret using whatever signals we can. Sometimes this leads to errors of assumption (which can create fun plot issues!) Don't underestimate the power of body language, intuition, and action.

Beth

[RaptorBpW]

I have a mid-scene POV switch phobia. But that's because I write almost purely in the third-person limited POV. To me, if you write in that style, you simply can't switch to another person in the middle of a scene. It invalidates the very nature of the limited viewpoint.

Third-person omniscient, on the other hand...well, you're playing God. You can do what you want, and switch whenever you like. ;)

I just like to keep the reader locked in the box of one character's head throughout a scene. If my character is going insane, I like to portray the insanity from inside the character's mind rather than through the observations of another.

That said, I reiterate: Change POV when you need to. When it feels right. Above all else your job is to keep the pages turning.

[maestrowork]

There're always exceptions, and some writers are very good at head hopping and that fits the story well.

I haven't read any 3rd person omniscient (meaning head hopping within the same scene) novels that I like yet.

[Susan Gable]

Different strokes, I guess. I don't see any difference between head-hopping and switching POV in the middle of a scene. That's the definition of head-hopping. This turns any novel into an automatic wall banger for me. It always comes across as the writer taking the lazy way out. When a writer starts switching POV without switching scenes, I immediately switch writers.

Like you say, different strokes. I define head-hopping as the FREQUENT switching of heads (POVs). (Hence the HOPPING part. One switch does not HOPPING make.) This "rule" of one-POV-per scene is a new thing in writing.

Nora Roberts, previously a notorious head-hopper (not that it impacted her sales at ALL!) once said that other romance writers were the ONLY people who bugged her about POV - her readers didn't care one bit. (Again, the sales speak for themselves.) Actually, she wrote more or less in omniscent POV.

Readers are not the morons they are sometimes portrayed/believed to be. They manage to follow along. Most of them have never heard of POV. Tell them a good story. As long as a writer is competent, switching POV does not indicate laziness.

I do not advocate "head-hopping" (see my definition) because it doesn't allow the reader to bond with the character well. Bonding with the character is critical for the reader - they have to root for him/her. However, I stand by the fact that switching POV once in a scene is NOT the mark of a hack - it's the mark of a writer who declines to go with this particular "rule" that someone, somewhere decided, started spreading like it was gospel truth, and after a while, everyone believed it.

That's different from a writer who doesn't know their POV from SUV, or who makes sloppy POV mistakes.

Switching POV in the scene beats rehashing the previous scene in the new scene just because you're in a different character's head.

Writing is great - one size does NOT fit all. There is no "one right way" to do it, no matter what some folks want you to believe. "Never use omniscent POV" one person says. "Never, ever Tell anything," another says. "Stay out of your characters' heads!" another warns.

Those are just some pieces of advice that are proven wrong on a daily basis in books being published right now.

How you prefer to do it, and what your choice is in reading material is totally up to you. :) It's a shame that becoming writers make us so much more critical as a reader. (I think there was a thread about that around here someplace.)

Susan G.

[brinkett]

I agree with everything Susan wrote. Readers aren't stupid. Constant head-hopping is distracting and can break the flow, but if one character passes the POV baton to another in a smooth and clear way, nobody cares. Except other writers who are reading in critic mode.

Intentionally changing the POV within a scene in a fluid manner isn't laziness, it's a skill. Readers only notice when an author isn't very good at it.

Whatever works, as they say.

[BlueTexas]

There're always exceptions, and some writers are very good at head hopping and that fits the story well.

I haven't read any 3rd person omniscient (meaning head hopping within the same scene) novels that I like yet.

Can anyone reccomend a 3rd omniscient novel they did like?

Maestrowork, what were some of the ones you thought were done poorly?

[JanaLanier]

I just finished Marian Keyes' Sushi for Beginners (chick lit) with head hopping. It's a cute book.

Bel Canto, by Anne Patchett, is a wonderful book (except for the ending) with head hopping.

Dune, a SF classic, head hops all over the place.

[Anatole Ghio]

There're always exceptions, and some writers are very good at head hopping and that fits the story well.

I haven't read any 3rd person omniscient (meaning head hopping within the same scene) novels that I like yet.

I posted on this in the earlier thread, but it bears repeating. Thomas Pynchon does it in Gravity's Rainbow all throughout the novel. He uses the elipses to go from view point to another... and she couldn't undertand exactly what he meant by jumping POV in the same scene. It didn't seem possible. She once had a writing teacher tell her to avoid doing it... he had been in front of the class for close to two hours. He wanted to beat it home to them, do not change POV in the same scene.

You get the idea. Gravity's Rainbow isn't for eveyone, and the technique is very jarring and takes getting used to. However, the novel has been voted one of the greatest of the 20th century on many critics lists, and the writing is very accomplished throughout, so there are worse authors to study for craft.

- Anatole

[cwfgal]

I agree with everything Susan wrote. Readers aren't stupid.

I don't equate wanting to write well and with skill as implying that readers are stupid. In fact, it's precisely because I believe most readers are quite intelligent and discerning in their tastes that I strive to give them the highest quality product I can.

Constant head-hopping is distracting and can break the flow, but if one character passes the POV baton to another in a smooth and clear way, nobody cares. Except other writers who are reading in critic mode.

And the editors a writer is trying to sell his work to.

Intentionally changing the POV within a scene in a fluid manner isn't laziness, it's a skill. Readers only notice when an author isn't very good at it.

Trust me, there are plenty of non-writing readers who notice. They aren't stupid, remember? The fact that a writer can head hop "with skill" doesn't mean the writing and the story wouldn't be much stronger and tighter if the writer strengthened their prose and characterizations to a point where head hopping wasn't necessary.

I can personally name three people (none of whom are writers) who were once Nora Roberts fans who will no longer read her work precisely because of her head hopping tendencies. (And Nora doesn't do it nearly as much as she used to--I wonder why?) Sure, three may not seem like much, particularly if you're talking in Nora's numbers, but for a low or midlist author, those three multiplied beyond my small circle of friends can be a career killer.

Beth

[cwfgal]

Readers are not the morons they are sometimes portrayed/believed to be. They manage to follow along.

Just because a reader can "manage to follow along" doesn't mean they should have to. Perhaps they deserve better than just managing to follow along.

Switching POV in the scene beats rehashing the previous scene in the new scene just because you're in a different character's head.

If the writing is strong enough, this shouldn't be necessary.

Writing is great - one size does NOT fit all. There is no "one right way" to do it, no matter what some folks want you to believe. "Never use omniscent POV" one person says. "Never, ever Tell anything," another says. "Stay out of your characters' heads!" another warns.

Those are just some pieces of advice that are proven wrong on a daily basis in books being published right now.

Being published isn't a guarantee of quality. Low quality stuff gets produced in all walks of life and it is often tolerated. Eventually, however, the cream will rise to the top.

Breaking the rules is fine if you first understand them, do it for a specific reason (other than because it's easier than taking the time to try to find a better way to accomplish what you want), and do it well. While all mid-scene POV shifts may not be the result of laziness or a lack of skill in the writer, I do believe that many, if not most of them, are just that.

Beth

[HConn]

I dub this:

Most Condescending Thread Ever!

:thankyou:
:thankyou:
:thankyou:

[Sandinista]

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books headhop a lot. Works out quite all right for the comedy though. At least to me.

[brinkett]

I don't equate wanting to write well and with skill as implying that readers are stupid.

Neither do I, which is why I never made that statement.


The fact that a writer can head hop "with skill" doesn't mean the writing and the story wouldn't be much stronger and tighter if the writer strengthened their prose and characterizations to a point where head hopping wasn't necessary.

Doesn't mean it would be strengthened if there was no POV switch, either. I don't believe that it's always possible to strengthen the prose and characterization to a point where a POV switch isn't necessary. Depending on what the author wants to get across, sometimes a POV switch is the better way to do it. Another thing I don't believe in is making blanket statements about what constitutes well written fiction. There's always a scene somewhere that will prove me wrong.

I've never read Nora. I don't know how often she head hops and how jarring it is, so I can't comment on anything related to her writing.

[ChunkyC]

I see nothing wrong with telling a story from multiple points of view. The change from one to the other just has to happen for a reason, and be clear.

In a work of mine, I have a big battle at the climax where I jump through the POV's of four different characters on different parts of the battlefield in fairly rapid succession, making about ten POV changes in total before reaching the 'big' moment. Each POV segment is a mini scene, each one building on the one before. I did this because there are numerous important things happening simultaneously, plus I believe (hope) it helps ratchet up the tension with each change. Each time I leave a character to move to another, I try to leave him or her in greater peril than the previous time we were with them.

[brokenfingers]

I believe there is but one golden rule in writing:

Whatever works.



I, personally, am not an omni-POV writer. But Larry McMurtery had a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, Lonesome Dove, that headhopped all over the place. I read it and I enjoyed it.



Plus, I believe Susan made a good point when she stated that the majority of readers don't even know what POV is. I know I never did until I began looking into this writing "stuff".



Dune was one of my favorite novels growing up, but I couldn't tell you the POV it was written in. I can, however, tell you who (character) the story (plot) was about.



I think, in the end, that's what readers really focus on: The Story.



If you notice, bestsellers are written in a very particular style. It’s hard to describe… straightforward, simplistic. Very smooth, as if the sentences had been worked with a very fine sander so that there are no sharp edges to prevent the reader's eye from sliding down each page repeatedly.



Often you’ll hear writers denounce these bestseller books and state loudly how they can’t understand how such non-talented writers can be published, much less bought by millions of people.



I guess writers are more attuned to the “craft” side, while the average buying public cares nothing for craft:



“Just give us a good story – we don’t care how you bring it!!”

[cwfgal]

Doesn't mean it would be strengthened if there was no POV switch, either. I don't believe that it's always possible to strengthen the prose and characterization to a point where a POV switch isn't necessary. Depending on what the author wants to get across, sometimes a POV switch is the better way to do it.

I'm not sure we're discussing the same thing. There is nothing wrong with telling a story from varying POVs and, in fact, some types of stories are much better told from a variety of POVs. What I'm referring to is the head-hopping that often occurs mid-scene, where at first we're in Joe's head and in the next sentence it's Carl's POV and in the next sentence it's Jane.

Another thing I don't believe in is making blanket statements about what constitutes well written fiction. There's always a scene somewhere that will prove me wrong.

I don't believe in blanket statements, either. But rules do exist for a reason and before you break them you need to know why they are there in the first place and what they are meant to accomplish. I think it's a disservice to say it's just fine to change POVs mid scene if you want.

(And when I say "you" I am not referring to anyone in particular, just writers in general.)

Beth

[brinkett]

I'm not sure we're discussing the same thing. There is nothing wrong with telling a story from varying POVs and, in fact, some types of stories are much better told from a variety of POVs. What I'm referring to is the head-hopping that often occurs mid-scene, where at first we're in Joe's head and in the next sentence it's Carl's POV and in the next sentence it's Jane.

No, we're talking about the same thing - POV shifting within a scene.


I don't believe in blanket statements, either. But rules do exist for a reason and before you break them you need to know why they are there in the first place and what they are meant to accomplish. I think it's a disservice to say it's just fine to change POVs mid scene if you want.

Of course an author should always know why they're doing something--that applies when you're staying within the "rules" too. What I was objecting to was the assertion that shifting POV within a scene is always lazy writing, and that all scenes written without POV shifting are by default stronger than scenes containing POV shifts. And when writing in omniscient, the rule doesn't even apply.

[BlueTexas]

I see nothing wrong with telling a story from multiple points of view. The change from one to the other just has to happen for a reason, and be clear.

In a work of mine, I have a big battle at the climax where I jump through the POV's of four different characters on different parts of the battlefield in fairly rapid succession, making about ten POV changes in total before reaching the 'big' moment. Each POV segment is a mini scene, each one building on the one before. I did this because there are numerous important things happening simultaneously, plus I believe (hope) it helps ratchet up the tension with each change. Each time I leave a character to move to another, I try to leave him or her in greater peril than the previous time we were with them.

I'm reading The Princes of Ireland by Edward Rutherfurd right now, and he's doing what you described above. I haven't reached the climax yet, but I'm pages away, and it works. In previous chapters, the head hopping was more limited. I haven't found it jarring, though I have been aware of it. It's effectively building the tension.

[cwfgal]

What I was objecting to was the assertion that shifting POV within a scene is always lazy writing, and that all scenes written without POV shifting are by default stronger than scenes containing POV shifts.

I don't believe I said "always" anything.

Beth

[cwfgal]

...while the average buying public cares nothing for craft:


I'm curious, do you really believe this or was it said tongue-in-cheek?

Beth

[Susan Gable]

And the editors a writer is trying to sell his work to.

Again, it depends on the editor. And I'll tell you another secret - if the editor is a POV purist, and the only thing "wrong" with the story is the fact that the write changed POV (not head-hopped) they will still buy the book, then tell the writer to please fix that. Yes. They really do that.

And like I said, I've now had several editors, and not one of them told me I couldn't change POV in a scene. They have pointed out at least once that they wanted the change-over tweaked a bit because it wasn't as clear as they wanted.

I can personally name three people (none of whom are writers) who were once Nora Roberts fans who will no longer read her work precisely because of her head hopping tendencies. (And Nora doesn't do it nearly as much as she used to--I wonder why?)

Beth

LOL - she changed because she got tired of hearing other authors grumble about it. <G> Maybe because she decided herself that limiting the POV jumps made her work stronger. Which I agree, it has. Like I said, I'm not advocating head-hopping, but I'm not a POV purist. This works for me as a writer. It works for my editors. Apparently it works for my readers, because I havn't gotten any letters from them saying, "You know, I'd have enjoyed your book so much more if only you changed heads in the middle of that scene on p. 48."

If my editors said to me, "Susan, you've got to become a POV purist or we'll stop buying books from you," would I do it? Sure. It wouldn't make me happy, but I'd do it.

So, why don't I do it now? Because I think the way I'm doing it now works.

Susan G. - a POV Slut

http://www.susangable.com/confessions_of_a_pov_slut.htm

[James D. Macdonald]

Books are just blueprints for the readers to use in constructing the story in their own heads.

Another master rule: Don't confuse the readers.

If the readers can follow the POV shifts, and the shifts make the story stronger, then do 'em.

[brinkett]

I don't believe I said "always" anything.

Your comments consistently equated quality writing with no POV shifting within a scene, and bad/lazy writing with POV shifting within a scene.

Anyway, I think we've beaten this one to death.

[maestrowork]

Don't confuse the readers. Anything you can do to keep them in that dream state. If they keep snapping out of it, wondering what is going on, then you have a problem. If you do it well, and are able to keep them in that dream state, head hop all your want.

[cwfgal]

Your comments consistently equated quality writing with no POV shifting within a scene, and bad/lazy writing with POV shifting within a scene.

I don't think anyone said that a mid-scene POV shift absolutely can't work but several people (myself incuded) said that mid-scene POV shifts are often jarring, disruptive, or an indication of sloppy/lazy writing. And they often are. It's something rookie writers do a lot because they don't yet have the writing skill or patience to create properly dynamic scenes where such head-hopping isn't necessary. (And as someone else mentioned, it may also be just enough to give an editor a reason to reject your story.)

I'm all for POV shifts when they are done properly ... I use them all the time myself. But doing it successfully mid-scene, particularly multiple times within a scene, is highly risky and requires great skill. Very, very few writers can pull it off, which is why I think it is a disservice to say, "Sure, go ahead, change POV all you want."

Show you can write a compelling scene without the POV shift. Then, if you can come up with a legitimate argument for how rewriting the scene with multiple POVs will greatly strengthen it, go for it. But the added value best be huge because the head-hopping will likely be noticed by a lot of readers and you'll be sacrificing the smooth flow of your story for whatever benefit you're hoping to achieve.

Beth

[brinkett]

I agree with your first two paragraphs. In fact, it's what Susan and I have been saying all along. When posting, we've been talking about intentional mid-scene POV shifts that are skillfully written, not ones that are accidental or sloppy. This doesn't equate to "go ahead and change POV all you want."

Unfortunately, the last sentence in the third paragraph betrays the open-minded tone of your first two paragraphs.

We're not going to change each other's minds. Let's move on.

[brokenfingers]

I'm curious, do you really believe this or was it said tongue-in-cheek?

Beth

Yes, I believe it. Why should the average reader care about how well a story is crafted?



When I get in a car, all I care about is how fast she’ll go, how well she handles. That’s why I drive. I don’t care about how many bolts are holding the chassis to the frame or the air pressure in the tires or the water/coolant ratio in the radiator. Unless I’m a professional race car driver, these things are irrelevant to me.



All I wanna know is: Will it get me there and will I enjoy the ride?



Readers are the same - they just want a good story. They just want to be transported away someplace where they don’t have to worry about the mortgage, the kids, parents, work, life etc.



Grammar, POV, character arc, foreshadowing, research, theme etc – these things are all unimportant to them as such.

They only recognize these things as one unit – a story - and know if they like it or not.


Now don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying these things are not important. They are vital to a well written book.

But these things are invisible to readers. Like the frame of a house. You don’t see it and you don’t think about it, but it’s there.


It kind of reminds me of Uncle Jim’s post about his father putting ham in the model sub. The average person didn’t see it, but somehow, someway, it made that sub more real – and therefore more enjoyable to the average person.



Also while readers don’t care about craft, they do care about style. As long as they like an author’s style and the author tells a captivating tale – they will buy their books.



The bestseller lists are chock full of authors who many think write schlock. Obviously the majority of the book buying public doesn’t let that bother them. Just give them a good story and make their world disappear for a while - that’s all they care about.

[maestrowork]

Like the guys from The Incredibles said: If they did their job well (meaning the CGI animation, etc.) the audience wouldn't even notice it.

Of course the craft is important. It's because if the author masters the craft, the readers won't even notice it. That's what a good book is. When a book or a movie is bad, the readers or audience would know it's BAD but they might not know why it's bad. A professional (writer or filmmaker/reviewers) would be able to tell you exactly why a book or movie is bad.

So don't say craft is not imporant. It's only when it's mastered that it becomes transparent to the readers.

So by all means, sharpen your craft.

Don't forget, professional writers and reviewers are part of your reader base, too.

[azbikergirl]

When I get in a car, all I care about is how fast she’ll go, how well she handles. That’s why I drive. I don’t care about how many bolts are holding the chassis to the frame or the air pressure in the tires or the water/coolant ratio in the radiator. Unless I’m a professional race car driver, these things are irrelevant to me.

All I wanna know is: Will it get me there and will I enjoy the ride?
What if the gas gauge started jumping up and down, or the engine warning light came on? What if the steering wheel started to shake and you weren't sure if you were in control? I suggest that the quality of the car, how well all its parts function together as a whole, are of tremendous importance to someone driving it. Even if you're out for a joy ride, do you want to have to call for a taxi because the vehicle just wasn't working properly?

To say readers don't care about craft is, IMO, to underestimate the readers.

[brokenfingers]

I’m not saying craft is not important. Au contraire, mon frere!

A writer must master his craft – that is a given.

All I’m saying is that I think it’s a mistake for a writer to sit down and write his story with the mindset that the writer’s mastery of the craft is what the reader’s going to care about.

That’s when you get overwritten stories. Verbose stories. Fancy stories that do every thing except what they’re supposed to do – entertain.

One of the most common rejection letters is that the agent/publisher feels the book was well-written but couldn’t get behind the story.

But if the agent loves the story – ahhhhh, that they can work with.

Mastering the craft of writing is one thing, showing it off to a reader who just wants to be entertained is another.

Unless you're writing literary fiction. Then OK, sure. I can see the reader would be interested in the craft, since that's part of the attraction for such literature.

Me? I'm just an escapist fiction hack.....

[brokenfingers]

What if the gas gauge started jumping up and down, or the engine warning light came on? What if the steering wheel started to shake and you weren't sure if you were in control? I suggest that the quality of the car, how well all its parts function together as a whole, are of tremendous importance to someone driving it. Even if you're out for a joy ride, do you want to have to call for a taxi because the vehicle just wasn't working properly?

To say readers don't care about craft is, IMO, to underestimate the readers.

Then I'd get another car - most likely a different model. But since I'm not a mechanic I wouldn't know why it didn't work - I'd just know it didn't work.

Same as a reader. If the book fails for them, they'll just say: this book sucks! and not buy another one from you.

[maestrowork]

I think it depends on the kind of books. Genre readers, for example, tend to care more about the story, the settings and the characters. They don't care if the prose is Nobel Prize-caliber gem. In mainstream or literary fiction, however, the craft is important to the readers -- they notice, because that's what they're looking for. Then there are cross-genre stuff. For example, what they call "literary mystery" -- the reading level of those books is higher (Grade 10 and above?)

So I can't say I agree that the readers don't care about craft. Many don't. But many do. We might not necessarily look for "beautiful prose," but when we come across it, we'll go "wow, that's good writing."

We need to give our readers some credit for recognizing good writing vs. crappy ones.