I'd like to second this. Anecdotally—I am a newbie to the publishing world and really have no contacts. My agent picked my book from the slush, not because I knew people.
Are we TOO good at the craft?
- Thread starter ShaunHorton
- Start date
- Status
I'd like to second this. Anecdotally—I am a newbie to the publishing world and really have no contacts. My agent picked my book from the slush, not because I knew people.
My agent picked me from the slush pile too. And once she had, and I'd accepted her offer, I mentioned that we had mutual friends and that I know people in the business. It's the book that counts, not the networking.
I'll second the role of hard work--and how brutal rejection is. Absolutely.
On the other hand, I do feel that bad books get published. It depends on what your standard of "good" is; if selling is the ultimate goal, who are we to question anything that sells? But I think for all of us it's only one of the goals--if the hardest one.
This thread got me thinking about an experience I had that was similar to the OP's. I picked up a book I'd heard of that had gotten linked with mine on Amazon--similar genre, same theme, some of the very same highly specific WWII history in it. About a hundred times as many Amazon reviews as mine. I was excited to read it, learn from it.
It was AWFUL. I couldn't believe it. Prose was flat, really flat, total telling & as for the specific bit of history I'm familiar with, this guy's version read like a paraphrase of the Wikipedia article on the subject, skewed with wildly unrealistic changes to fit what the author wanted. Specifically, to make his invented reader-insert character the hero of it all, while naming real people and making them seem clueless about the heroic activities they actually, in real life, personally organized.
I don't want to go on and on, but one specific example so you understand the level of it. This was Christian Holocaust fiction. It contained a Polish farmer who had a gun and a pickup truck and who, suddenly presented with Jews who'd escaped from Auschwitz, hid them and explained it was because Jesus was Jewish and wanted him to. And I mean he said it like it was obvious. Also! Pickup truck! In 1940s Poland!
I learned from it, all right.
But I learned more than one thing. I don't doubt this author works hard. Has a ton of thrillers to his name. I looked and looked at his opening, which did everything they say not to do--it did nothing but declare the main character's thoughts for several pages--and it was effective. It did this: it let us know that the main character was 1) the only sane man among his acquaintance, being sure that the coming German invasion of France would be disastrous and trying to warn everyone else while they skipped around and picked daisies, and 2) a total underdog, unimportant and disregarded yet hard-working, generous, brave and true. I said reader-insert up there for a reason. We were clearly supposed to see ourselves in this guy. In the second scene, naturally, he turned action hero during the invasion. Another pickup truck was involved iirc.
I'll always remember that opening. That stuff gets people. Now do I want to get people in that very same way? To me there's a point where engaging your reader emotionally ends and pandering begins. That's why I say that selling is not the only goal. So there's a line I'm trying to walk. But nevertheless I did learn from this guy. He is good at something. I'm going to try to take what I can accept about that something and leave the rest. And the part I can accept probably comes down to this:
And... it's worth getting it right, for truth's own sake. I mean, I don't write SF and I don't have feelings about accuracy regarding EMPs, so I don't know just how much this carries over--but I just know for me, what I'm doing, it would be wrong not to put in the time because it doesn't matter to sales. Y'know?
On the other hand, I do feel that bad books get published. It depends on what your standard of "good" is; if selling is the ultimate goal, who are we to question anything that sells? But I think for all of us it's only one of the goals--if the hardest one.
This thread got me thinking about an experience I had that was similar to the OP's. I picked up a book I'd heard of that had gotten linked with mine on Amazon--similar genre, same theme, some of the very same highly specific WWII history in it. About a hundred times as many Amazon reviews as mine. I was excited to read it, learn from it.
It was AWFUL. I couldn't believe it. Prose was flat, really flat, total telling & as for the specific bit of history I'm familiar with, this guy's version read like a paraphrase of the Wikipedia article on the subject, skewed with wildly unrealistic changes to fit what the author wanted. Specifically, to make his invented reader-insert character the hero of it all, while naming real people and making them seem clueless about the heroic activities they actually, in real life, personally organized.
I don't want to go on and on, but one specific example so you understand the level of it. This was Christian Holocaust fiction. It contained a Polish farmer who had a gun and a pickup truck and who, suddenly presented with Jews who'd escaped from Auschwitz, hid them and explained it was because Jesus was Jewish and wanted him to. And I mean he said it like it was obvious. Also! Pickup truck! In 1940s Poland!
I learned from it, all right.
But I learned more than one thing. I don't doubt this author works hard. Has a ton of thrillers to his name. I looked and looked at his opening, which did everything they say not to do--it did nothing but declare the main character's thoughts for several pages--and it was effective. It did this: it let us know that the main character was 1) the only sane man among his acquaintance, being sure that the coming German invasion of France would be disastrous and trying to warn everyone else while they skipped around and picked daisies, and 2) a total underdog, unimportant and disregarded yet hard-working, generous, brave and true. I said reader-insert up there for a reason. We were clearly supposed to see ourselves in this guy. In the second scene, naturally, he turned action hero during the invasion. Another pickup truck was involved iirc.
I'll always remember that opening. That stuff gets people. Now do I want to get people in that very same way? To me there's a point where engaging your reader emotionally ends and pandering begins. That's why I say that selling is not the only goal. So there's a line I'm trying to walk. But nevertheless I did learn from this guy. He is good at something. I'm going to try to take what I can accept about that something and leave the rest. And the part I can accept probably comes down to this:
And... it's worth getting it right, for truth's own sake. I mean, I don't write SF and I don't have feelings about accuracy regarding EMPs, so I don't know just how much this carries over--but I just know for me, what I'm doing, it would be wrong not to put in the time because it doesn't matter to sales. Y'know?
If you want to be published it doesn't matter what your standard of "good" is: what's important is if an agent, and then a publisher, thinks they can sell it.
This thread got me thinking about an experience I had that was similar to the OP's. I picked up a book I'd heard of that had gotten linked with mine on Amazon--similar genre, same theme, some of the very same highly specific WWII history in it. About a hundred times as many Amazon reviews as mine. I was excited to read it, learn from it.
I'm not sure what your objection to the pickup truck is. Such vehicles were around: just look at news footage from the time and place. For example, here's an extract taken from a first-hand account:
My bold.
You say it worked. So what's the problem?
Being successful because you happened to have the right skills in the right place around the right people seems to be true of life in general, not just publishing. However, I don't see this as a reason to wring our hands in dismay and try and estimate what percentage of luck is required in order to get published, unless that's also what you do with everything else in your life. 
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 14,708
- Reaction score
- 24,667
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Website
- elizabethbonesteel.com
Being successful because you happened to have the right skills in the right place around the right people seems to be true of life in general, not just publishing. However, I don't see this as a reason to wring our hands in dismay and try and estimate what percentage of luck is required in order to get published, unless that's also what you do with everything else in your life.
Some very wise people on this very board have said that the only thing you can do is focus on those things over which you have control.
Actually, that's excellent advice for life in general, not just writing.
I'm confused. If I'm already published, does it then matter what my standard of “good” is?
Of course you have to appeal to the readers, the agents, and the publishers. But isn't it possible to try to meet more than one standard at a time? I understand not wanting people to go off the deep end of BUT MY WORK IS BRILLIANT AND UNAPPRECIATED AND THE STANDARD OF ALL THAT IS GOOD IN THIS WORLD. But isn't there some middle ground between that and the idea that sales numbers determine one's worth as a writer? Sure, by that standard this guy's objectively better than all of us in this thread, unless we've got someone famous I don't know about.
Your story has a Peugeot pickup truck being used by the Allied armies in France near the end of the war. That's extremely believable despite how (relatively) uncommon pickup trucks are in Europe. A poor-to-modest Polish farmer owning one with gas in it in occupied Poland stretches my credulity a little more.
But I don't care that much about the pickup truck. It's the Jesus thing that bothers me. That Polish farmer gave the canned answer that we American Christians are taught as the right answer to why we would of course have helped Jews in the Holocaust. He gave it without any apparent consciousness that any of his Christian neighbors might think differently. And believe me most of them thought differently. Christian anti-semitism was deep and rampant in Poland. I say this as a devout Christian. Who is writing about a true story in which Christians saved Jews. There's a line between “here are these particular Christians who protected their neighbors, let's dig into why they did that and how we as Christians can be more like them” and “Christians were automatically the good guys in the Holocaust because they were Christians, read this and feel good about yourself.” I am not crossing that line. To sell books or any other reason.
That's the problem. The pandering in the opening is just a symptom. Yeah, it sells books. I agree with that. It sells books.
Last edited:
Some very wise people on this very board have said that the only thing you can do is focus on those things over which you have control.
Actually, that's excellent advice for life in general, not just writing.
Yes, it is.
Which is not to say that if you have focused on everything within your control and got it whipped into shape, then that is the magic formula to success.
It's not. And that's frustrating. But it's life, both within and without the publishing world.
If the level of anxiety over this within the publishing world is disproportionately more than the level of anxiety over other things in life, then I'd wonder why that is. Less familiarity with that world vs. other life stuff? Anecdotal-based assumptions or biases? I dunno.
An example of luck: I happened to sub a flash story to a market around the same time someone else happened to sub a similarly-themed flash story. The market took both and put them both in the same podcast. I didn't figure the whole thing out until the podcast went live. If I'd sent that same story at a different time, it might have been rejected. Other markets rejected it, but maybe if my timing was different, and they read it at a time when they wanted a flash story of that type, they'd have bought it.
So I did get lucky with the timing. Also it was lucky I spent nearly two years focused on writing short stories. Lucky I heavily researched markets during that time, and it was luck that I kept subbing stories. And it was nothing but luck that I tracked the kind of responses I got so I could better target markets. Definitely, the harder I worked, the luckier I got.
So I did get lucky with the timing. Also it was lucky I spent nearly two years focused on writing short stories. Lucky I heavily researched markets during that time, and it was luck that I kept subbing stories. And it was nothing but luck that I tracked the kind of responses I got so I could better target markets. Definitely, the harder I worked, the luckier I got.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,124
- Reaction score
- 10,886
- Location
- Where faults collide
- Website
- doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I think we can drive ourselves nuts trying to quantify what percentage of success is luck vs. hard work and skill/talent. This goes for other professions besides writing too.
I suspect that luck and timing are somewhat more than 10% of the formula but somewhat less than 90%. That's a huge range, and it may well be situational or genre/market-dependent too. Quality is very subjective, and most published work falls short of being literary masterpieces but is still quite a lot better than something one could dash off without any skill (or editing). I've certainly read trade-published books that were not that great from wither a technical or plot-related standpoint, in my opinion, not to mention stories I think are good but could have benefited from another round of editing. Then there are the ones that make me itch to rework sentences into greater smoothness and eliminating annoyingly repeated words or names and that
This is my opinion, of course, and in the interest of RYFW (and editors), I realize that no work is perfect, tastes are subjective, and even big five presses and pro rate short fiction markets have to make hard choices about deadlines, production costs, and which readership they are targeting and which sorts of stories and worlds and characters they think might be "hot" in the current market (or which kinds they hope they can create a market for).
I'm guessing that good craft skills and rigorous editing probably won't hurt one's chances, but they're not everything.
As I already said, I used to think that once you sold something to a respectable market, you'd have it made, or at least that success would banish lingering self doubts about the quality of your work. Enough published writers have told me otherwise that I now realize that this view was hopelessly naive.
I suspect that luck and timing are somewhat more than 10% of the formula but somewhat less than 90%. That's a huge range, and it may well be situational or genre/market-dependent too. Quality is very subjective, and most published work falls short of being literary masterpieces but is still quite a lot better than something one could dash off without any skill (or editing). I've certainly read trade-published books that were not that great from wither a technical or plot-related standpoint, in my opinion, not to mention stories I think are good but could have benefited from another round of editing. Then there are the ones that make me itch to rework sentences into greater smoothness and eliminating annoyingly repeated words or names and that
This is my opinion, of course, and in the interest of RYFW (and editors), I realize that no work is perfect, tastes are subjective, and even big five presses and pro rate short fiction markets have to make hard choices about deadlines, production costs, and which readership they are targeting and which sorts of stories and worlds and characters they think might be "hot" in the current market (or which kinds they hope they can create a market for).
I'm guessing that good craft skills and rigorous editing probably won't hurt one's chances, but they're not everything.
As I already said, I used to think that once you sold something to a respectable market, you'd have it made, or at least that success would banish lingering self doubts about the quality of your work. Enough published writers have told me otherwise that I now realize that this view was hopelessly naive.
Some very wise people on this very board have said that the only thing you can do is focus on those things over which you have control.
Actually, that's excellent advice for life in general, not just writing.
YES.
Are you already published? What's your point?
Pickup trucks are far from uncommon in Europe. I own one, and so do most of my neighbours. But we're moving off-topic.
Yes.
I think of the luck/hard work thing as a bit of a spectrum. If you don't work hard and you don't do your research but you succeed, you're probably lucky. If you do work hard and do your research but you don't succeed, you're probably unlucky.
S'like the ol "right place, right time" thing. A slapdash first draft can only succeed in the exact right place and right time. If a book is well written and submitted correctly, etc, then there are more right places and more right times for it.
S'like the ol "right place, right time" thing. A slapdash first draft can only succeed in the exact right place and right time. If a book is well written and submitted correctly, etc, then there are more right places and more right times for it.
as with surely everything in life, every advantage always helps but isn't always enough, and sometimes people get by without any boosts at all.
there probably is quite a lot of luck or at least a lot outside your control, but in my fatalistic way I tend to think everything is outside our control, barring existence of the supernatural. Having talent, opportunity, dedication, etc., are just as much luck as knowing that guy who runs that agency or whatever; you could argue that being born with a writerly mind is itself the jackpot, as it were.
there probably is quite a lot of luck or at least a lot outside your control, but in my fatalistic way I tend to think everything is outside our control, barring existence of the supernatural. Having talent, opportunity, dedication, etc., are just as much luck as knowing that guy who runs that agency or whatever; you could argue that being born with a writerly mind is itself the jackpot, as it were.
Last edited:
Joke. Forgot to add a smiley. Yes, I'm traditionally published and selling pretty modestly, currently working on upping my game if I can. And like I said, I did learn something from that book I was trashing so much there--it might have been lost a little in there because I guess I still have a lot of feelings, but I did learn: accuracy, respectful representation, etc, will not necessarily help you sell, those are things you do simply because you believe in them. Making your reader sympathize and/or identify with the main character from the very first page WILL help you sell. I am trying to use that lesson by trying to do both of those things. I had originally intended to emphasize the second a little more than I did.
I have an example of luck. I was terrible at query letters, though I worked hard on writing and rewriting one. I was also so clueless I was trying to sell a YA historical that was 140,000 words. After absolutely no luck with the queries, I went to a writers' conference where a few agents and publishers had sign-up sheets for in-person meetings with writers. I talked to one agent and two publishers and one of the publishers requested a full, then asked me to revise and resubmit, the main stipulation being to cut 40,000 words. Which I did. I believe I was very lucky in that publisher and anyone else would have just rejected. The editor I worked with, whom I miss very much now that she's moved on from that house, told me that they believed in sometimes taking on projects for their potential, which is rare among publishers these days. I don't know if anyone else would have taken it. Maybe I'd have gotten it published much later once I got a clue about word counts and did a lot more hard work.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,389
- Reaction score
- 500
Interesting thread with lots of good points and things to think about and learn from.
Others have said similar things to this, so sorry if I'm just repeating here. There are so many factors involved in making a story good, that a story that appears "bad" on the surface might also be succeeding largely because of all the other right things the author did. Readers can criticize the prose, clichés, info dumps, whatever, but if the author is doing other right things, like making characters people want to read about or introducing questions people want answered, then that writer is making the story good, even if in less obvious ways than beautiful prose. There may not be many great stories - the ones that get it all right - but plenty of stories that are good in their own ways.
I don't think it's possible to determine what percentage of writing success is skill and work and determination and what percentage is anything external (and it's going to vary for different people), but to me it doesn't matter. I'll just keep writing and learning and trying, while trusting that all those external factors that I have no control over will eventually fall into place. Even if it takes a lifetime to get there, might as well keep moving in the direction of improving and seeking opportunities. I don't have some alternative dream to pull off the shelf; this is my dream, so this one gets my all.
The original question brings to mind a question they asked us in grad school (maybe it related to research publications, since I didn't study creative writing): Would you rather publish several pretty good works, or one truly great one? Applying it to writing/publishing in general, I can see a case being made for either, and both are fine choices, but I'd rather publish one or two "great" works than a bunch of pretty good ones. So I don't think we're trying too hard or that we're too good at craft. I'll keep editing and reworking and sharing until I get it right. And then I'll submit my work. And if I get only rejections, I'll start all over.
Others have said similar things to this, so sorry if I'm just repeating here. There are so many factors involved in making a story good, that a story that appears "bad" on the surface might also be succeeding largely because of all the other right things the author did. Readers can criticize the prose, clichés, info dumps, whatever, but if the author is doing other right things, like making characters people want to read about or introducing questions people want answered, then that writer is making the story good, even if in less obvious ways than beautiful prose. There may not be many great stories - the ones that get it all right - but plenty of stories that are good in their own ways.
I don't think it's possible to determine what percentage of writing success is skill and work and determination and what percentage is anything external (and it's going to vary for different people), but to me it doesn't matter. I'll just keep writing and learning and trying, while trusting that all those external factors that I have no control over will eventually fall into place. Even if it takes a lifetime to get there, might as well keep moving in the direction of improving and seeking opportunities. I don't have some alternative dream to pull off the shelf; this is my dream, so this one gets my all.
The original question brings to mind a question they asked us in grad school (maybe it related to research publications, since I didn't study creative writing): Would you rather publish several pretty good works, or one truly great one? Applying it to writing/publishing in general, I can see a case being made for either, and both are fine choices, but I'd rather publish one or two "great" works than a bunch of pretty good ones. So I don't think we're trying too hard or that we're too good at craft. I'll keep editing and reworking and sharing until I get it right. And then I'll submit my work. And if I get only rejections, I'll start all over.
Last edited:
I also think there's a point where craft gives way to 'marketable/sellable.' If publishers can't see how they can market a book, you're in trouble. It's a purely business decision, irrespective of craft.
When it comes to art, I find myself asking this question a lot: How?
How can people watch this? How can people listen to this? How can people read this? How could someone with the finances decide to produce this?
There's nothing wrong with questioning the craftsmanship of the stories in that anthology (or any artistic endeavor), but it's nothing you should ruminate on for too long, as that's nonproductive.
Write to the best of your ability. Hustle to publish. Try to meet your goals as a writer.
Also, maybe you should have sent that story to the anthology. It could have been your piece that shined through past the others, the one readers would have remembered.
Though there is as great as a chance that no matter how good you think you are, others might find your work as mediocre as you found the work in anthology.
How can people watch this? How can people listen to this? How can people read this? How could someone with the finances decide to produce this?
There's nothing wrong with questioning the craftsmanship of the stories in that anthology (or any artistic endeavor), but it's nothing you should ruminate on for too long, as that's nonproductive.
Write to the best of your ability. Hustle to publish. Try to meet your goals as a writer.
Also, maybe you should have sent that story to the anthology. It could have been your piece that shined through past the others, the one readers would have remembered.
Though there is as great as a chance that no matter how good you think you are, others might find your work as mediocre as you found the work in anthology.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 14,708
- Reaction score
- 24,667
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Website
- elizabethbonesteel.com
QFT.
I'll admit that I haven't read any of the recent successful books that are widely derided for being "badly written." I have heard them defended by people who love them, though - including some "real writers" - and what seems to be true is these "badly written" books often manage to strike a universal emotional chord that hits the mark with an awful lot of people. Sometimes making that connection trumps all of the technical continuity and grammatical perfection in the world.
Me, I loved The Thorn Birds. I read it over and over. Is it Shakespeare? Of course not. Does it have unpleasant sexual overtones I didn't want to examine too closely? Oh, yes. Is it over-the-top, melodramatic soap opera? Absolutely. And I cried at the end every single time.
Yup, being boring just makes books well boring! Everyone can write what they want, how they want, etc. On a scale of 1-10 how amateur was it? Have you ever heard of the writers before or is it obviously a beginner wrote these pieces?
"Boring" is another of those qualities only interpretable by a reader. I'm bored by the novels of Orson Scott Card. A hell of a lot of people (including my son) find them unputdownable. There exists no objective standard by which "boring" can be evaluated.
caw
I think there's a lot to be said for doing the best you can for your own sake, if for nothing else. I'm sure some people are fine with creating things that they feel are sub-par as long as they get paid or receive reasonably good feedback, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but personally, I don't feel very satisfied when I feel like I could have done a better job on something.
Also, it's worth remembering that you're probably not just writing for the people who don't know/care about errors. People who are fine with factual errors or who don't realize that the errors are there probably won't like your story any less if you put in some extra effort, but that effort could be necessary to hook readers who do care.
That's good to know, thanks
When I read posts/blogs etc and see how people get names and hook up at work shops and conferences etc I'm jealous that I could never attend something like that because of where I live. I feel much better after reading your post.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2017
- Messages
- 292
- Reaction score
- 120
Of course luck is involved. Just as it plays a part in every other career in every other industry. I've probably misunderstood (as usual), but returning to the original post - my feeling is that the OP found 'writing errors' in published work, questioned why the work was publishable, and the conversation has inevitably moved on to 'lucky authors'.
IMO, I think the problem comes from mistaking guidelines for rules. Is it OK to write four pages of prose before introducing the MC? Absolutely, if it's great prose. Is it OK to continually switch from first name to surname? Yep - again, if you can pull it off. It's also OK to filter, to tell, to head-hop - in fact, I'm reading 'All the light we cannot see' by Anthony Doerr at the moment, and he does exactly that - switches POV mid-chapter/mid paragraph (from daughter to father). It's a stunningly beautiful book and deserved its Pulitzer, and there's that great big head-hop which works perfectly.
It's possible that the anthology may just accept poor quality work and the stories truly are badly written (I don't know, I haven't read them). But, I think there's a danger of putting too much store in the conventions of 'what makes good writing' and then believing work to be poor quality if those conventions aren't followed. The guidelines are all correct, of course, and I personally try to abide by them, but they aren't written in stone. For me, the question shouldn't be 'are we too good for the craft?', it's 'are we too inflexible'.
FWIW, I've bought years' worth of anthologies from the 'big' competitions (Bridport etc) and have never read a poorly written story in them.
Ed.
IMO, I think the problem comes from mistaking guidelines for rules. Is it OK to write four pages of prose before introducing the MC? Absolutely, if it's great prose. Is it OK to continually switch from first name to surname? Yep - again, if you can pull it off. It's also OK to filter, to tell, to head-hop - in fact, I'm reading 'All the light we cannot see' by Anthony Doerr at the moment, and he does exactly that - switches POV mid-chapter/mid paragraph (from daughter to father). It's a stunningly beautiful book and deserved its Pulitzer, and there's that great big head-hop which works perfectly.
It's possible that the anthology may just accept poor quality work and the stories truly are badly written (I don't know, I haven't read them). But, I think there's a danger of putting too much store in the conventions of 'what makes good writing' and then believing work to be poor quality if those conventions aren't followed. The guidelines are all correct, of course, and I personally try to abide by them, but they aren't written in stone. For me, the question shouldn't be 'are we too good for the craft?', it's 'are we too inflexible'.
FWIW, I've bought years' worth of anthologies from the 'big' competitions (Bridport etc) and have never read a poorly written story in them.
Ed.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2016
- Messages
- 243
- Reaction score
- 63
Something I've become very aware of, in my evolution as an author, is the difference between being a great writer and a great storyteller. I am a skilled writer, but I am not a skilled storyteller. Storytelling is my biggest challenge - I can write strong scenes, but I struggle immensely with finding an engaging and sustainably interesting story arc.
Most of the books I judge as being sub-par really are sub-par when it comes to the writing. But where they're strong - and the reason they got published - is in the storytelling. Fifty Shades of Gray is horribly written. But it's a compelling narrative that millions of people find impossible to put down. Same with pretty much every book by Dan Brown. I wrinkle my nose constantly through his books, but I still read them because the stories are great, even if he misuses intransitive verbs.
Some books have strong writing and storytelling. Some have just one. It's just different ways of being good at the craft.
Most of the books I judge as being sub-par really are sub-par when it comes to the writing. But where they're strong - and the reason they got published - is in the storytelling. Fifty Shades of Gray is horribly written. But it's a compelling narrative that millions of people find impossible to put down. Same with pretty much every book by Dan Brown. I wrinkle my nose constantly through his books, but I still read them because the stories are great, even if he misuses intransitive verbs.
Some books have strong writing and storytelling. Some have just one. It's just different ways of being good at the craft.
- Status