ANATOMY OF A BEST SELLER

Arkie said:

For me, traditional publishing is a lottery pick. Self-publishing may be all I have.

Click to expand...

If you've written a story that a lot of people want to read, you can get traditionally published. If you haven't, no self-publishing scheme on earth will help you.

Story trumps everything.

Arkie said:

Does the novel open in the middle of the action? No. The first action of consequence, the rape and murder of a young widow that drives the story happens in the second chapter that is narrated in third person, allegorical style.


Does the book hook the reader in the first five pages, as advocated by some writing gurus? No.


Does the novel meet current conventional wisdom of using active verbs to set voice and pace? No. The pace is slow, written primarily in passive voice. One whole chapter involves nothing but southern cooking.


I leave it to the reader to determine if this simple analysis has meaning. Grisham’s writing style goes against current writing wisdom regarding recasting sentences to eliminated passive verbs. I came away thinking that I cannot change the way I write and affect a writing voice that attempts to meet a vague notion of what acquisition editors and agents claim to be in vogue. For me, traditional publishing is a lottery pick. Self-publishing may be all I have. I want to write with clarity and energy, but as Darrel Royal, the old University of Texas football coach used to say, “I have to dance with who brung me.”

Click to expand...

Okay, first of all, at this point, all it takes is John Grisham's name on the cover. See, he has proven himself to the reading public. He can afford a slower start and to not "hook" his reader on the first page. The readers will cut him some slack because they've tried him before and liked him. Or because the public has already given him a stamp of approval. "Hey, he's John Grisham. I'll give him a couple of chapters before I decide on this book."

Second, please remember that all of these "rules" are guidelines. No one ever says get rid of every passive verb in your book. It would be impossible, I think, to write a novel that has none of the To Be verbs in it. (Might be interesting to try it for a short story. I don't even know if you can do it for a short story. I guess, like everything else, it depends on the story.)

And finally, as Uncle Jim put it, it's the story. (Or as I prefer to say, and please don't take this personally, because it's not - it's a rip off of a former president - "It's the story, stupid.") John Grisham already enjoys a reputation for being a good story-teller. Again, that gives him more leeway than the unproven.

Susan G.

There is one rule: If it works, it's right.

The Last Juror also is not Grisham's first best seller. When you're a brand like Grisham, you can break a whole tons of rules/guidelines.

He could have written a phone book and people would probably have bought it.

Bestseller

I'd say those stats have exactly zero meaning, excpet to say very loudly "Study novels, not rules." Writing a novel people want to read is about character, story, and dialogue. The "rules" are there only as guidelines to make these elements easier to achieve.

"Conventional wisdom" about writing often isn't conventional wisdom at all. More often than not, it's the way one writer writes, or it comes from critics, or it comes from English teachers. It also comes from one person saying one thing about one specific book, and then the internet spreads it all over heck and back, turning it into "conventional wisdom."

Some novels do need fast starts. Some novels need long, slow starts. Some novels need rapid fire action with minimal description. Some novels need minimal action with lots of detailed description. Some novels need minimal characterization and tons of plot. Some novels need detailed, rounded, heavy characterizaion with minimal plot.

It all depends on the story you're trying to tell, the audience you're trying to reach, and the affect you want the book to have on readers.

It isn't "conventional wisdom" that says "was," "had," and "I" are bad words, it's usually English teachers and new writers who read simple guidelines for better writing and turn them into internet wide gospel. I've yet to read a good writer who avoided these words. Shakespeare is considered by most to be the best writer in English who ever lived. Pick a play at random and see how many times he used "was," "had," or "I." If Shakespeare can use 'em, so can I.

Affecting a writing voice, except where the story demands it, has never been the answer, and it's lousy advice, wherever you hear it.

All the "rules" are there only to let a writer improve, to let a writer hone his voice, not to turn it into an affected voice. Grisham may not be the best writer who ever lived, but he isn't a bad writer, either. His style is more than competent, and his characters and stories are very good.

Good agents and good editors do not reject manuscripts because they fail to follow "conventional wisdom." Good agents and editors reject manuscripts because the story and the characters do not keep them reading. If an agent or editor reaches the end end with the feeling that they really liked what they just read, you have a sale.

This does not mean really bad writing sells. It very seldom does, and it shouldn't. Writing must be merely competent, but it must be that.

"Conventional wisdom" and "rules" can be valuable to those who truly have a problem with reaching the comeptent level of writing, and many do have this problem. But there are many very good writers out there who can't sell anything because they don't know how to tell a story, or how to draw good characters, or how to write dialogue people want to read. Competent writing and good story/characters/dialogue will stomp all over great writing but poor story/characters/dialogue each and every time.

Beautiful writing is no more than gravy. It's very nice when you get it, and you do want it if you can get it, but it's the potatoes under the gravy that sells novels. Go to any good MFA program in the country and you'll find some of the most beautiful writing you've ever read, and nearly all of it is unpublishable because there simply are no potatoes under the gravy. No story, no good characters, no nothing.

In my opinion, most new writers spend far too much time worrying about the gravy, and far too little time thinking about the potatoes.

Self-publishing isn't the answer. If you're writing is competent, and more important, if you can tell a great story, fill it with characters the reader cares about, and put something resembling good dialogue in their mouths, you won't have any trouble getting published conventionally.

If you can't do this, all you'll have is a self-published novel no one wants to read.

The "rules" can be used by writers to hone, to improve, to smooth the writer's natural style, but in truth, once the basics of grammar and punctuation are learned, a writer's time is far better spent reading and studying conventional novels, rather than reading and studying "conventional wisdom."

Read Shakespeare, Twain, London, Faulkner, Hemingway, Bradbury, King, Grisham, and every other writer you can get your hands on. They all have very different styles, very different voices, very different ways of writing, etc., but they all have one giant commonality; they all know what a good story is, what good characters are, and how to write dialogue that matches the story and the characters.

If you can match this commonality, and if your writing is at all competent, you won't have any trouble finding a publisher. If you can't, well, self-publishing isn't going to help.

Unfortunately, a lot of agents do tend to look at these "rules" as guides to select their ms (from unknown authors). I have heard so many "the beginning is too slow" from prospective agents, even though they understand I didn't write a thriller...

Once you're an established author, though, I think you'll have more elbow room.

A slow beginning is something you can buy with the last chapter of your previous book. If there isn't a previous book you may not have the capital to afford it.

Beginning

maestrowork said:

Unfortunately, a lot of agents do tend to look at these "rules" as guides to select their ms (from unknown authors). I have heard so many "the beginning is too slow" from prospective agents, even though they understand I didn't write a thriller...

Once you're an established author, though, I think you'll have more elbow room.

Click to expand...

Yes, but sometimes the agents are right. It isn't only thrillers than need fast starts. A novel in any genre needs a fast start IF that's the kind of story the writer is telling.

But the big thing is this: in my experience with agents and editors, "the beginning is too slow" is very often code speak for "the beginning bored me."

Long, slow opening shouldn't be boring. I think the one and only cardinal rule of writing, the unbreakable, inviolate, deadly sin is "Thou shalt not bore the reader." This is especially true of openings. True, some readers will be bored by any slow beginning, but that's a different issue. Long and slow should never mean boring or uninteresting.

And length is also a factor. If you submit a 250,000 word novel, an agent or editor will expect a slower opening, though still not a boring one. If you submit a 80,000-100,000 word novel, an agent or editor will usually expect a faster opening.

I agree with Susan and Jim.

Okay, what you need to do is find a bestseller that is the first book an author has published. No track record at all. Analyze it, pull it apart, smell it, taste it, consume it and when it shows up again <ahem> do it all over again. Count the pages, the words, the number of times an s is followed 3 letters later by a q, weigh the book before you read it and then again after.

And you know what you'll end up with? A few hours you could have been spending writing.

Cheers,

-- Marty

A review lesson on passive voice

I'll handle it this time because Medievalist hasn't shown up yet.

"Was" isn't a "passive verb," whatever that means. Many sentences that contain "was" aren't passive.

These sentences are in passive voice:
Grapes are dried to make raisins.
The knight's armor was made by the best blacksmith in the valley.

These sentences are not in passive voice:
Raisins are a major crop in California.
Sir Guthbert's armor was bright and shiny.

Couple more

Just a few more comments.

"TENDENCIES OF THE AUTHOR: Likes to start sentences with prepositional phrases (the first word usually IN, AFTER, BECAUSE), and often begins sentences with BUT. Makes small use of ADVERBS and ADJECTIVES. Writes short sentences and uses simple words of one and two syllables."
I can'tthink of good writer who doesn't have these same tendencies.

"The book is written in first person, but author used third person for Chapter Two. The personal pronoun, I, was prevalent in the first 10 chapters, but tapered off somewhat in the final 34 chapters. Chapter 1 had 114; Chapter 8, 139; Chapter 9, 107; Chapter 10, 104."
I'll have to reread chapter two. I honestly don;t remember it being in thrid person. I thought it was first person iwthout the "I." But there's nothing at all wrong with the use of personal pronuns. Like naything else, they can be overused, but I can't imagine writing without them.

"Does the novel open in the middle of the action? No. The first action of consequence, the rape and murder of a young widow that drives the story happens in the second chapter that is narrated in third person, allegorical style."
Whoever said stories have to open in the middle of the action? This is a good thing to do with some novels written in certain ways, but there are probably more novels where this doesn;t happen than there are novels where it does.


"Does the book hook the reader in the first five pages, as advocated by some writing gurus? No."


This I'd disagree with. I was hooked from the first sentence on.


"What did the RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH say: “Grisham lets his suspense build slowly, holding the reader to the end and creating a memorable cast of characters. A surefire bestseller."
They were correct.

"Does the novel meet current conventional wisdom of using active verbs to set voice and pace? No. The pace is slow, written primarily in passive voice. One whole chapter involves nothing but southern cooking."
I'd also disagree with this. As a guesstimate, I'd say three to four percent of the sentences were passive, which is more than acceptable. As for the slow pace, it was, in my opinion, a fast slow pace.

I think we tend to overlook one of the big things in whether a novel's publishable or not. Authority.

Authority is when the reader thinks, "Okay, I'll trust you, Writer. I'll go along where you're going, at least for now."

As readers, we let the writer have authority when we like his previous books, when he's popular, when he's well-reviewed. We give him the benefit of the doubt.

But it's also a stylistic thing. The writer says, "Trust me, Reader. I'm going to take you some place interesting." If you have that--then you can open slow. You can spend a chapter on southern cooking. It's just easier to make the reader trust you if you don't do that.

reph said:

I'll handle it this time because Medievalist hasn't shown up yet.

"Was" isn't a "passive verb," whatever that means. Many sentences that contain "was" aren't passive.

Click to expand...

Reph, it is a passive verb. It's a being verb, which is not an action verb. But you're right, it's NOT passive VOICE, which is a whole 'nother animal. You're correct with your sentences about that. And it's okay to have a passive voice sentence every now and then - again, no one should tell you to erradicate EVERY instance of either a passive verb or a passive voice construction. Sometimes you need one of them.

Susan G. - who will be missing from the boards for a while due to some health stuff. I'll be back as soon as I can, though!

Susan Gable said:

Reph, it is a passive verb. It's a being verb, which is not an action verb.

Click to expand...

My teachers spoke of being verbs and action verbs, but they didn't call "to be" a passive verb. If other teachers did, that explains why so many people at AW think every sentence that contains "was" is in passive voice.

To be

reph said:

My teachers spoke of being verbs and action verbs, but they didn't call "to be" a passive verb. If other teachers did, that explains why so many people at AW think every sentence that contains "was" is in passive voice.

Click to expand...

Some teachers do call "to be" a passive verb, and it is a passive verb in the sence that when used as such, it will make a sentence passive. Unfortunately, most teachers fail to point out that passive verbs do not automatically make passive sentences.

But I believe the internet is the real culprit here. One well-visited site puts up a single example of "was" making a sentence passive, and suddenly the entire internet seems to say "was" always makes a sentence passive.

I find it odd, and a bit sad, that so many who want to be writers can't tell the difference between an active and a passive sentence, and don't understand that many sentences containing to be verbs are neither active nor passive.

When this is the case, I suppose the answer is to kill "was," "had," and all other instances of "to be" in hopes of killing all passive sentences. Sort of a "kill them all, and let God sort them out" method of writing

Unfortunately, most teachers fail to point out that passive verbs do not automatically make passive sentences.

Click to expand...

And in the spirit of rectifying this:


The policeman was dead.

Here, 'was' is the main/lexical verb. It is not in the passive voice. You could call it passive writing, I guess, in the sense that it doesn't describe an action, but that seems confusing the issue to me.

The policeman was dying.

Here, 'was' is an auxiliary verb. 'Dying' is the main/lexical verb. It also is not in the passive voice. 'Was' here marks tense (past continuous). To be + Verb with an -ing ending is a continuous tense, not the passive voice.

The policeman was shot.

Here 'was' is also an auxiliary verb. This time it marks that the lexical verb 'shot' is in the passive voice. To be + Verb in the past participle (verb with the -ed ending) marks the passive voice. Usually.

The policeman was being shot.

Here 'to be' appears twice. Once as an auxiliary verb marking the continuous tense and once as an auxiliary verb marking the passive voice.

Okay, so far so simple. Now then...

I was shocked.

Here, you could say that 'was' is a lexical verb and that 'shocked' is an adjective (like "I was hot") or that 'was' is an auxiliary (like 'the explosion shocked me' => 'I was shocked by the explosion' => 'I was shocked').

What does this have to do with writing? Well, that's another question altogether. And one I will leave to people more qualified than me.

Which is practically everyone.

Euan H. said:

What does this have to do with writing? Well, that's another question altogether. And one I will leave to people more qualified than me.

Click to expand...

In the proper story, at the proper time, any one of those sentences could be the absolutely perfect sentence.

If it works!

These are just guidelines, conventional wisdom. Why does active voice work better in fiction? Because it puts the readers right inside the story, where it all happens. That's THE guiding principle you should care about: how do I keep the readers captive? That's what a "best seller" does -- it's not about the "beauty" of prose or the impeccable use of the language. You can analyze everything till the cows come home: % passive vs. % active, POV, sentence fragments, etc. Most readers don't even care. The question you should really ask, when you try to analyze a best seller, is "How does the author accomplish the task of keeping me in his world, enthrall and entertain me?" Once you find that answer, you're on your way.

An interesting analysis.

How about doing the same on a bestselling first novel?

Or, at least, one written under a new penname (e.g. Robin Hobbs).

I think you'll find a huge difference. Not being a Grisham fan, I'd have probably put down the book you describe after the 1st chapter. Would a publisher have bought it if Grisham had been J Smith, newbie?

I couldn't get past the first few chapters of A PAINTED HOUSE for months. I thought it was SO frigging slow, all set up and nothing happened. I only gave it a chance because it was a Grisham book -- because I had trust in his works. If he were a new author, I probably would never have picked the book up again after I'd put it down. But I'm glad I did... it was a fabulous book, and the story picked up after, oh say, 60 pages. Once I finally got inside his world, he didn't let me go.

But is that the way we should write our first novel? I'd say NO.

maestrowork said:

I couldn't get past the first few chapters of A PAINTED HOUSE for months. I thought it was SO frigging slow, all set up and nothing happened. I only gave it a chance because it was a Grisham book -- because I had trust in his works. If he were a new author, I probably would never have picked the book up again after I'd put it down. But I'm glad I did... it was a fabulous book, and the story picked up after, oh say, 60 pages. Once I finally got inside his world, he didn't let me go.

But is that the way we should write our first novel? I'd say NO.

Click to expand...

I agree with all your comments on A PAINTED HOUSE. Had it been a first time novelist I would probably have set it aside. I'm really glad I persevered though and I now rank it in my top 10 ten favorite books of all time along with EAST OF EDEN and THE HANDMAID'S TALE.

Slow starts are for the writers that can sell by name only, such as Grisham. Newbies need to stay away from slow beginnings only because that's the nature of the beast. Maestro's right, being a big name gives a writer a lot of elbow room, space that we just don't have . . . yet.

Its true that "was" isn't always passive, but I think the real problem with it happens when it becomes obvious that the writer is using it as a lazy little shortcut.

I'm not talking passive/active here, I'm simply saying that "was" becomes offensive in sentences where a more specific verb could have been used.

EX: "The cop was dying" as opposed to "The cop lay dying"

EX: "The building was tall" as opposed to "The building stood tall"

There really are a lot of situations where "was" either can't be avoided, or works better than any alternative. The trick, I guess is to limit "was" in your writing to only these places, but to be more specific whenever possible.

Just to add a bit to my above comments -

Passive voice is annoying when the writer comes up with a nicely specific verb, yet still tacks "was" onto it.

EX: "Joe stood on the porch, awaiting his ride, when..."

as opposed to -

"Joe was standing on the porch. He was waiting for his ride. Suddenly..."


The second sentence uses passive voice twice, throws in a pronoun that didn't have to be there, and uses the cliche' of "Suddenly". Even Grisham couldn't get away with writing like that for long. His well respected name would vanish.

There really is a bar where anything below could be written "better". Above that bar, we can quibble about how it might've been written "differently" but not necessarily better. All these rules and guidelines are around to make the writer aware of that bar, and to strive at least to level with it.