Are we TOO good at the craft?

ShaunHorton · Jun 19, 2017

I'm sorry, this is as much a rant and a rhetorical question as a serious one.

Anyway, I picked up a book recently. An anthology I had previously been tempted to submit to, but never had a piece ready for it. I made it about ten pages in.

Everything about it screams amateur to me. It bites back at things I've learned here, and things I just generally know. For example, for a short story, it was pointed out to me that I need to introduce my characters as early as possible, to help readers get a feel for things. The first story in this anthology goes on for four PAGES before we get any names. Then, (fyi, this is a military-based anthology) the main character is referred to, back and forth by his first name and his last name, which makes it hard to keep track, as other characters have similar first names.

A bit deeper in, I was treated with the little informational bit that the characters don't have to worry about spiders, scorpions, or rattlesnakes because an EMP wiped them out. An Electro-Magnetic Pulse, wiped out whole species of arachnids and snakes.

This is just my most recent example. I've tried to read books by other authors and found similar set-ups. Where people ignore what should be common-sense rules of writing and just grab whatever they want and throw it into the story with obviously no research whatsoever. And these stories get picked up by editors for magazines, anthologies, and publishers.

Meanwhile, I'm neck-deep in research, blocking myself by worrying I don't have the set-up just right. Reading my stories over and over, editing, re-editing, re-re-editing, dropping into the SYW boards here. Everything that logic and common sense tell me I should do to improve as a writer and to make my work the best it can be. Still, I'm not getting anywhere, and then I see pieces like that out in the world, getting paid for.

I dunno, does it ever feel like maybe we're trying too hard? Are we holding ourselves to standards the rest of the world has given up on already? Language does change over time, could we be on the cusp of an overhaul where grammar and the standards of writing are going to be dropped to the wayside, as long as the reader "gets" what we're trying to say and enjoys the story?

Beanie5 · Jun 19, 2017

there is only one rule in writing ; don't be boring.

Fruitbat · Jun 19, 2017

Being a writer has forever changed my ability to turn off the inner editor and just enjoy the damn story!

Roxxsmom · Jun 19, 2017

Beanie5 said:
there is only one rule in writing ; don't be boring.

Maybe a different way of asking ShaunHorton's question would be: do most editors (and readers) not find clumsy, confusing writing to be boring, or at least more trouble to read than whatever entertainment value it is worth?

And as for arachnids and so on being wiped out by an EMP: I'm a biologist by background (if I remember right, Shaun is also), so I'm used to spotting biological errors, even in so-called "hard" SF, the kind of things that a half hour or so of googling could fix and that knock me out of disbelief. I can get past a certain amount of this if the characters are compelling and the story is good. I can also accept a goofy premise if everything else derives sensibly from it and is internally consistent. Still, this one has my eyes rolling so hard I can see the back of my skull. Was this really the best thing this writer (and their beta readers and editors) could come up with?

Maybe another question would be what makes a story good, compelling and not boring enough that editors don't see any reason to get the author fix its mistakes before it is accepted, and readers are wiling to ignore clumsy writing and glaring misinformation.

If this happens just once in a while, maybe it's just one of those "quirks." Maybe the story in question simply connected with the particular editor somehow, or appeal to a particular audience, even if others might raise our eyebrows.

I also know writers who are damned good, ones who have sold stories to pro markets and have books out with big five publishers, who still struggle to sell short stories to top markets. I know a writer who is in this situation who was just agonizing on FB how they wrote a longer short story, one they really dig and feel is some of their best work, but it got form rejected by all of the (admittedly few) markets that take unsolicited short fiction of that length.

I once assumed that if someone sold a story or three to pro-rate magazines, and especially if they sold a novel to a big-five publisher, they'd always be short-listed by editors. I assumed that such writers had gleaned an objective understanding of what good writing and storytelling are and would be able to replicate their success over and over. However, it seems that no one really understands the vagaries of the fiction market, not even people who have written stuff that is well written, well researched, and not boring. Quality is highly subjective.

cornflake · Jun 20, 2017

I'd wonder what anthologies and such you're looking at.

Lakey · Jun 20, 2017

I think people's tolerance for pedestrian writing varies - not all readers are equally sensitive to it, and not all readers who are sensitive to it are writers, and even some writers aren't particularly sensitive to it. Some readers and some writers value an engaging story (and even what that means varies, of course) enough to not be bothered by niceties of craft.

I'm not one of them. Even before I ever prepared to try writing fiction for myself, I had no tolerance for amateurish or uninteresting prose. Often a book will come highly recommended to me and I just won't be able to get through it because of clunky, average-at-best execution. (I gather that it's discouraged to name names here when criticizing others' work, so PM me if you want examples.) This sensitivity is why I likely won't ever be able to write to my own satisfaction. My goal is just to produce a manuscript that doesn't make me cringe with embarrassment when I read it. I'm not anywhere near that yet. I despair of ever getting there.

But I don't think it's a new thing, that one finds average writing in print. Quite the contrary, really. In the middle of the last century people read for pleasure quite a lot more than they do now. There were publishing houses that cranked out low-quality paperbacks which people devoured and forgot. Many of these were derivative, simplistic, and not terribly thoughtfully crafted. I read reprints of a handful of these that turned out to have social importance (because of their subject matter, not because of their quality); two of them had forewords written decades later by their authors, and both authors mentioned that once the editor took the manuscript he published it without changing a word. This wasn't because their books were perfectly executed; it was because the editor purposely did not invest a lot of time in any one title. He did not care that they weren't brilliantly crafted, because he knew the people buying the books he published wouldn't care.

From what I understand of the publishing industry today, this kind of churn-em-out approach still exists to some degree, but it's nowhere near as widespread as it used to be.

lizmonster · Jun 20, 2017

Lakey said:
I think people's tolerance for pedestrian writing varies - not all readers are equally sensitive to it, and not all readers who are sensitive to it are writers, and even some writers aren't particularly sensitive to it. Some readers and some writers value an engaging story (and even what that means varies, of course) enough to not be bothered by niceties of craft.

I was actually thinking about this yesterday. I read an awful lot of stuff that's competently written, but that (IMHO) lacks spark. Some of it gets nominated for major awards. Obviously to a certain extent it's a matter of personal taste, and there are genres where I'm perhaps more tolerant of clunkiness than others (because I love the stories).

I do think that, past a certain skill level, narrative and story structure become much more important than the actual prose. Some of my favorite books aren't written with a Shakespearean vocabulary, but they're written in a way that hauls me into the story and doesn't let go.

I'm not sure, though, that it's possible to write a compelling narrative without a certain level of linguistic craft. And I can't say what that level is - like I said, once you get to the point of grammatical correctness, it's really subjective.

Cindyt · Jun 20, 2017

However you begin, the aim should always be reader empathy. Dear Reader should cry, laugh, swear, etc. If you don't write to touch it will most def be boring.

Stephen Palmer · Jun 20, 2017

Roxxsmom said:
I once assumed that if someone sold a story or three to pro-rate magazines, and especially if they sold a novel to a big-five publisher, they'd always be short-listed by editors. I assumed that such writers had gleaned an objective understanding of what good writing and storytelling are and would be able to replicate their success over and over. However, it seems that no one really understands the vagaries of the fiction market, not even people who have written stuff that is well written, well researched, and not boring. Quality is highly subjective.

Most writers and authors are reluctant to admit that sheer random luck plays a huge part in all this. They want to feel that there's a connection between effort and reward. The truth is, 90% of it is chance.

Cobalt Jade · Jun 20, 2017

From what I understand of the publishing industry today, this kind of churn-em-out approach still exists to some degree, but it's nowhere near as widespread as it used to be.

Fanfiction, Wattpad, AoW, and similar sites fill this niche these days. But it's so much work wading through the morass to find something to your taste.

Maze Runner · Jun 20, 2017

I do sometimes weigh the value of craft against story. Also, I'm not too clear on what would be considered (over)crafted prose. My taste as a reader varies from the terse Hemingway and Bukowski, to the rich, thick prose of Chabon and Saul Bellow. I do think there's something about prose that disappears from the page and leaves the reader with only story. At the same time, I can luxuriate in artful, multi-dimensional prose.

Lakey · Jun 20, 2017

Maze Runner said:
I do think there's something about prose that disappears from the page and leaves the reader with only story. At the same time, I can luxuriate in artful, multi-dimensional prose.

To my mind, both of those require a tremendous amount of craft. It's the prose that achieves neither of those things that tends to get on my nerves.

Maze Runner · Jun 20, 2017

Lakey said:
To my mind, both of those require a tremendous amount of craft. It's the prose that achieves neither of those things that tends to get on my nerves.

I agree, and especially worth noting, I think is the discipline required to write economically. Also, there's an art that comes out of simplicity. I'm often more moved by prose that hits me right between the eyes. But I sure can appreciate the beauty of luxurious prose. I've tried to write that way, even pulled it off a time or two, but maybe this is about knowing yourself well enough to find your own way.

(as far as craft...now, as far as good fortune, I think all we can do is bring our "A" game in every outing and hope it will buy us some luck)

Old Hack · Jun 20, 2017

Stephen Palmer said:
Most writers and authors are reluctant to admit that sheer random luck plays a huge part in all this. They want to feel that there's a connection between effort and reward. The truth is, 90% of it is chance.

The harder you work, the better your chance of publication.

The better your writing, the better your chance of publication.

The more you revise your work, the better your chance of publication.

The more carefully you research who to submit to, the better your chance of publication.

I could go on.

Harlequin · Jun 20, 2017

I don't think it's all chance.

If someone is barely literate in terms of writing, their chance of traditional publication is nil. Not small, just nil.

In relation to being able to write well, a certain paraphrased Marilyn Monroe quote springs to mind... it isn't everything, but it sure helps.

Roxxsmom · Jun 20, 2017

Maze Runner said:
I do sometimes weigh the value of craft against story. Also, I'm not too clear on what would be considered (over)crafted prose. My taste as a reader varies from the terse Hemingway and Bukowski, to the rich, thick prose of Chabon and Saul Bellow. I do think there's something about prose that disappears from the page and leaves the reader with only story. At the same time, I can luxuriate in artful, multi-dimensional prose.

This post right here shows how different tastes, expectations and norms are with regards to reading and writing. It actually made me feel hopelessly ignorant, like a grubby kid who accidentally stumbled into a party for grown ups. I don't know who Chabon or Bukowski even are. I do know Hemingway from school and some personal reading, and a book by Bellow was on my parents' shelves (I tried to read it, and I didn't get very far).

Some of us were thinking and talking specifically about genre fiction, not historically recognized "great literature," or even modern literary fiction, when we're expressing frustration and uncertainty about what is marketable and where that line for quality is. Above authors aside, I've read my share of great literature where the way the story is told is as important, perhaps, as the story itself, but it's not my "go to" preference. I have a fondness for SFF, and some of the writers in that genre that are considered more literary today don't hold my interest. I also have trouble with some of the classic authors, because I find their prose dry and flat.

At some level, I read for the connection with characters and for immersion in a different world and for (yes, I'll admit it) escapism. Prose that feels unnecessarily klunky, flat, dull, or inconsistent--and characterization and world building that knock me out of disbelief--will interfere with this. I sometimes notice evocative or lovely turns of phrase, and have some envy for the ability of writers who have the instinct for crafting them, but I don't tend to read for that sort of thing. I actually find many literary novels, including some SFF written in unconventional or innovative ways, to be un-relatable.

So maybe this is really the answer to the question. Some likely would think of many of the writers I enjoy as hopelessly pedestrian and the books I love as poorly crafted, or at least as bland and frustrating as the story Shaun mentioned in the OP. Someone else might love the story, though, and think that the kinds of things Shaun (or I) like to be pretentious or over crafted (or at least irrelevant to what they look for in a story).

lizmonster · Jun 20, 2017

Harlequin said:
I don't think it's all chance.

If someone is barely literate in terms of writing, their chance of traditional publication is nil. Not small, just nil.

In relation to being able to write well, a certain paraphrased Marilyn Monroe quote springs to mind... it isn't everything, but it sure helps.

I agree, in that a certain level of skill is required. It's like the stories about query letters written in crayon: if you can write competently and tell a tale well, you're already ahead of 90% of your competition.

But past that? Yeah, there's way more luck involved than I would have expected.

Maze Runner · Jun 20, 2017

Michael Chabon, Mysteries of Pittsburgh, Wonder Boys, Amazing Adventures of Cavalier and Clay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chabon

Charles Bukowski, Women, Hollywood, Factotum, also wrote a lot of poetry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bukowski#Novels

The first thing I read for is voice. I have my preferences, as far as genre, but if I latch-on to a voice I'll follow it anywhere.

Marketing? I haven't a clue.

Old Hack · Jun 20, 2017

Roxxsmom said:
This post right here shows how different tastes, expectations and norms are with regards to reading and writing. It actually made me feel hopelessly ignorant, like a grubby kid who accidentally stumbled into a party for grown ups. I don't know who Chabon or Bukowski even are. I do know Hemingway from school and some personal reading, and a book by Bellow was on my parents' shelves (I tried to read it, and I didn't get very far).

Some of us were thinking and talking specifically about genre fiction, not historically recognized "great literature," or even modern literary fiction, when we're expressing frustration and uncertainty about what is marketable and where that line for quality is. Above authors aside, I've read my share of great literature where the way the story is told is as important, perhaps, as the story itself, but it's not my "go to" preference. I have a fondness for SFF, and some of the writers in that genre that are considered more literary today don't hold my interest. I also have trouble with some of the classic authors, because I find their prose dry and flat.

At some level, I read for the connection with characters and for immersion in a different world and for (yes, I'll admit it) escapism. Prose that feels unnecessarily klunky, flat, dull, or inconsistent--and characterization and world building that knock me out of disbelief--will interfere with this. I sometimes notice evocative or lovely turns of phrase, and have some envy for the ability of writers who have the instinct for crafting them, but I don't tend to read for that sort of thing. I actually find many literary novels, including some SFF written in unconventional or innovative ways, to be un-relatable.

So maybe this is really the answer to the question. Some likely would think of many of the writers I enjoy as hopelessly pedestrian and the books I love as poorly crafted, or at least as bland and frustrating as the story Shaun mentioned in the OP. Someone else might love the story, though, and think that the kinds of things Shaun (or I) like to be pretentious or over crafted (or at least irrelevant to what they look for in a story).

Yes!

In my experience (and I have read a LOT of slush), writers who are determined to write Great Literature usually produce pompous, overwritten, horribly wordy stuff which no one will publish (and quite rightly too). The really great books are great because so many people love them, not because they're so dense and difficult and flowery.

There are plenty of good and great books which I don't particularly like. That doesn't mean they're not good or great books: it just means I don't like them. So when I read threads like this I feel quite uncomfortable, because we're so at risk of judging books--and therefore writers--unfairly. Sneering at books which fall into genres we don't like, or which we don't consider somehow worthy enough.

Let's not declare that books we don't like are somehow not good enough. Let's not say we're better writers than all those people who are published and popular and doing well just because we don't like their work. How about recognising instead that there's a huge amount of talent and room for us all?

chompers · Jun 20, 2017

Stephen Palmer said:
Most writers and authors are reluctant to admit that sheer random luck plays a huge part in all this. They want to feel that there's a connection between effort and reward. The truth is, 90% of it is chance.

I think luck has a role in it, but definitely not anywhere near 90%. I think it's the opposite -- 10% or so is luck. It's not chance that usually the bestselling books are well written. It's poorly-written books that do well that aren't as common. But one has to think, is it really poorly written? It might not use the best prose, but they tend to pull on the heartstrings. Whoever it was above nailed it. It's about emotions. If the reader can't relate/engage, it doesn't matter if your grasp of the language is the best if they don't care about the character. But readers are much more willing to overlook flaws if they care about the characters.

Roxxsmom · Jun 20, 2017

lizmonster said:
I agree, in that a certain level of skill is required. It's like the stories about query letters written in crayon: if you can write competently and tell a tale well, you're already ahead of 90% of your competition.

But past that? Yeah, there's way more luck involved than I would have expected.

This sums up my experience. I'd heard so many stories about badly written, unedited submissions and queries that don't follow basic instructions, that I thought I had a good chance with my novel. Everyone agreed that I was good at craft, and most of my critting partners thought it was a very good read and told me I'd better sub it and soon.

And I worked my query letter to death here on QLH and elsewhere. One agent complimented it, saying they'd like to use it in their workshops on "how to write a query letter." Even so, it got few nibbles from agents and was rejected by those who did with very little in terms of personalized explanation.

Who knew that the market was so flooded with queries that even those "one in a hundred" well-done, well written submissions would amount to hundreds, even thousands, of pieces of slush to wade through?

Looking at the MSWLs for fantasy these days, I think my story just doesn't stand out enough from the pack of pre-industrial fantasy in terms of setting, perhaps, but there are plenty of other nagging little doubts.

That's the thing about writing. We never know for sure what's wrong with a story or book that doesn't find a home or what's right about stories or books we think are pretty "meh," or even terribly un-polished and poorly researched, that do get published by markets that gave us form rejections.

Most successful writers I know say persistence is the most important thing, and that's a quality I lack. I don't know how to develop, write and polish dozens (or more) ideas, characters and worlds to shotgun them out there. I'm the kind of person who tends to withdraw and shut down (get really depressed) when I fail at something.

Maze Runner · Jun 20, 2017

I tell myself, when I'm good enough, I'll get lucky. I don't know if I'll ever get there, and I don't know if wherever 'there' is will be good enough to get out of writing what I want to get out of it. Which isn't all that much. Just to be published by a publisher who's earnest and capable, and has the budget and inclination for a promotional push.

Maze Runner · Jun 20, 2017

Roxxsmom said:
That's the thing about writing. We never know for sure what's wrong with a story or book that doesn't find a home or what's right about stories or books we think are pretty "meh," or even terribly un-polished and poorly researched, that do get published by markets that gave us form rejections.

Most successful writers I know say persistence is the most important thing, and that's a quality I lack. I don't know how to develop, write and polish dozens (or more) ideas, characters and worlds to shotgun them out there. I'm the kind of person who tends to withdraw and shut down (get really depressed) when I fail at something.

I can never remember who said it, probably Stephen King or John Gardner, but one of them said that there was nothing better for a writer's writing than success. Because then they know that they're on the right track and are free to proceed and develop along those lines.

There is such a thing as objective quality. I think it's true in everything, but in art it gets a little murkier than in other fields. At the same time, if the above is true, then it also must be true that what we call failure is, hahaha, bad for a writer's development. It's bad. Because it makes us doubt everything, even things that if we could see more clearly, we might say are objectively good.

ETA: Sometimes I feel like I'm trying to punch my way out of a paper bag, and if I just knew where the weak spots were I could direct my blows, and I could free myself!

Harlequin · Jun 20, 2017

Roxxsmom said:
Most successful writers I know say persistence is the most important thing, and that's a quality I lack. I don't know how to develop, write and polish dozens (or more) ideas, characters and worlds to shotgun them out there. I'm the kind of person who tends to withdraw and shut down (get really depressed) when I fail at something.

Plus the whole, writing multiple books before you strike gold is a little tough if you write in a genre where series are common (as you probably do, if you write fantasy?)

justaddgigi · Jun 20, 2017

It's hard to not discouraged when you see authors who are producing lesser quality works get paid and get accolades. I'm an artist as well, and I see that a lot. All you can do is keep your head up and keep trying and keep honing your skills. One day you will get noticed, it just will happen when it happens.

Are we TOO good at the craft?

AW's resident Velociraptor

Live a poem...Or die a fool. \/

.

Beastly Fido

practical experience, FTW

professional dilettante

Possibly A Mermaid Queen

Gettin wiggy wit it

professional dilettante

Such a nasty woman

Eat books, not brains!

Beastly Fido

Possibly A Mermaid Queen

Such a nasty woman

Beastly Fido

Eat books, not brains!