Are we sometimes a bit too precious?

[Tom from UK]

Perhaps sometimes we get a bit carried away about the writer's craft. I've just read 'The Fields of Death' by Simon Scarrow. (I've reviewed it on Goodreads.) If Scarrow had posted it on SYW, we (and I include myself) would have crucified him. Shifting POV, telling not showing, appalling dialogue - the list just goes on and on. But he's immensely popular and, 700 pages later, I know why. He tells the story of the Napoleonic Wars and he tells it convincingly and in a way that people can understand.

Perhaps sometimes we miss the wood for the trees.

[Deb Kinnard]

At day's end, story rules. I've read to the end of a book I didn't think I'd finish due to craft issues. And midway through I realized the workmanship wasn't throwing me out of the story -- I was invested in a thoroughly fascinating tale and I had to see how it ended!

Would the read be better if the writer had been more persnickety about craft? Impossible to tell. There are writers who do everything exactly right, and their story isn't interesting. Other writers, if you hem them about with "this is good writing" dicta, will hyperfocus on those things to the exclusion of story. Some writers become paralyzed and can no longer write magic.

I'm partial to the magic, m'self.

[Puma]

We, unfortuately, have been brought to dancing to the tune of the market - fast and furious. When I think of all the wonderful and highly acclaimed books I read with the teenage knowledge that I'd have to wade through the first fifty pages before it would start to get interesting, I think of books in the Harvard classics, the Russian authors, the greats. They didn't start off fast and furious and they didn't abide by all the current rules for what you have to do to sell.

Yes, we have become too precious, but, what's the solution in this market? I'd just about guarantee that most of the great pieces of literature we cut our teeth on would be passed over today.

And yes, story rules. I sometimes harp on this in critting short stories - that have no story. Puma

[Flicka]

It's not about 'story vs writing'. It's not 'being precious'. It's that we all write different kinds of books, likely targeted at different audiences.

In competition law you have the SSNIP test to determine whether or not two products are part of the same market. In a situation with a small but significant non-transitory increase in pricing (5-10 %)of one product, would you purchase the other? If no, they are not part of the same market - like, say, Chimay and Stella. One brand is bigger, but I would never trade a Chimay for a Stella, anymore than I would trade, say, Rosemary Sutcliff for Simon Scarrow. Many people might say the same but in the other direction - more, likely, considering Stella's market share. It doesn't mean that Chimay should stop focusing on quality. It doesn't mean they're 'too precious'. They don't make a beer for everyone. But they are darned good at the niche they brew for.

I'm going to be pretentious now, and say that you need to pick your artistic vision. You need to decide what sort of product you want to make, and make sure it's as good as it can be in that niche - be it niche beer, plain beer or even cola. But don't try to make cola-flavoured niche beer for coinesseurs that sells big, because that likely isn't going to succeed.

That's how I see it.

[gothicangel]

I've not read that book, but I've read several of Scarrow's Roman titles, and frankly I found them dreadful. Ben Kan, Robert Fabbri and Christian Cameron are far superior authors.

I don't think this is to do with being precious, but market. It took me a while to realise, but Scarrow's target market are teenage/early 20's males. His fiction isn't going to appeal to a reader like me who loves Hiliary Mantell, Angela Carter and James Robertson.

The books of Scarrow I did read, seemed to be nothing more than a series of punch-ups, which ended with a battle. He's pretty formulaic, with nothing much inbetween. He's certainly no Robert Graves.

It's the same thing with Dan Brown. They sell by the bucket-load, and damned as hell does anyone in publishing know why.

I'm sticking with my pretensions.

[Literateparakeet]

I haven't read the author you mention Tom, but I have wondered the same thing as I read.

I really like Orson Scott Card (not Ender's game, but a lot of his other writing). I was reading Saints recently (it is historical fiction ) and there was a lot of narrative summary. But also this line that still makes me chuckle.

She apologized, "I'm sorry."

That line would have been picked up by every single critter in SYW. But then he is author with an established name, so...

About Dan Brown and James Patterson...I think of them as "story tellers". They are popular because they are good story tellers. They write the kind of books you read once and enjoy the ride (well if you are not a writer yourself). Then there are writers. They write the books we read again and again. Some of their books out live them.

So you have to ask yourself, which do you want to be a storyteller or a writer? Does it matter to you? Some people just want to make a living at writing and they don't care. That's fine. For me, I want to be a writer. I'm willing to work for it and to get "beat up" by critters, as long as it takes.

[pdr]

You can be both, LP. You can tell a great story and make the words sing as you do it.

I reckon you're spot on,Flicka. We have to write in our own voice, with our own honesty and integrity. If that means Romance, or Horror or Literary, our way, then so be it. Find your writing niche and sell that. With e-publishing and much hard work, you now can raise two fingers to the trad publishers and go your own way.

[Shakesbear]

I've read all four of Scarrow's books about Wellington and Napoleon - Young Bloods, The Generals, Fire and Sword and The Fields of Death. I read them because I am interested in the subject matter. I enjoyed the first three books and did not think very much about style because I was focused on the content. I agree with Tom that Scarrow "tells it convincingly and in a way that people can understand."
The last book, Fields of Death, I did not finish because I found I was reading about events and battles I knew about and had read better accounts of them. I will probably read the first three books again as I did enjoy them and learnt a lot from them.

[Literateparakeet]

Originally Posted by pdr

You can be both, LP. You can tell a great story and make the words sing as you do it.

Of course. I think a good writer IS both. My point is that some people are good enough storytellers that they can sell books without also being good writers.

I want to make my words sing and dance, not just sell books.

[WildScribe]

Originally Posted by Literateparakeet

Of course. I think a good writer IS both. My point is that some people are good enough storytellers that they can sell books without also being good writers.

I want to make my words sing and dance, not just sell books.

It's good that you think so, because you DID present it as a choice, above. I agree, a good writer is both, and I can't stand a lot of popular series (yes, Dan Brown) because the writing isn't very good.

[Literateparakeet]

Originally Posted by WildScribe

It's good that you think so, because you DID present it as a choice, above.

Sorry for being confusing...I hope my fiction writing is clearer than my posts.

[JJLindsell]

I'd just about guarantee that most of the great pieces of literature we cut our teeth on would be passed over today.

This.


When you think about Dostoevsky, Calvino...god, how would you write a query for If on a Winter's Night a Traveller?!

So as to us being too precious, who is 'we'? Because I'd say the preciousness (?) is a property of publishers-and-agents-interpretations-of-the-market. Which is probably closely correlated to, but not entirely indicative of, the potentiality of the market.

Easily solved.

[Flicka]

I wasn't going to go there, but if we're talking Dan Brown, I think his books are some of the most boring, predictible stuff I've read, and that has nothing to do with his writing and everything to do with his story telling.

Just more proof that it's not about story vs writing but with diverging tastes.

[eggs]

I'm in the 'story is king' camp. Assuming the writing isn't utter crap to the point that it distracts from the story, I'm not too fussed (as a reader) on many of the write-ahly rules. One example of this is the 'show don't tell' rule. One of my favourite authors is Charles De Lint. He's been writing lovely atmospheric urban fantasy since before the category of urban fantasy began, and boy does he like to tell and tell and tell. And boy do I love to read it, page after page. He creates fabulous worlds, edge of the seat plots and wonderful characters, and he does all of this with bucket loads of telling.

If you can write like Charles De Lint, it's okay to tell until the cows come home. Unfortunately, most people can't write like Charles De Lint - especially those who are still so new to the craft that they're posting on SYW. Advising people who are still learning to write that it's okay to break the rules is doing them a gross disservice, even though it IS okay to break the rules once you have fully internalized them all.

[gothicangel]

Originally Posted by JJLindsell

This.


When you think about Dostoevsky, Calvino...god, how would you write a query for If on a Winter's Night a Traveller?!

I don't think you even have to go as far back as that. I'm convinced Rosemary Sutcliff wouldn't be published now. How many copies of The Eagle of the Ninth sold? 1 million+, 25,000 copies shifted last year alone, she was outselling several of the current crop of Roman historical writers.

Go figure!

[Tom from UK]

Originally Posted by gothicangel

Go figure!

Figure indeed! It's the figures that matter, I'm afraid. I don't think I can name names, but I know someone who works for the publishing house that published a good, successful novel that was made into a major film. Apparently it barely broke even. They almost turned the next one down on the grounds that he author wasn't a sound economic proposition.

The one they nearly turned down was one of the biggest successes of several years.

The economics of publishing are insane.

[gothicangel]

I've just finished reading the second of Robert Fabbri's series on Vespasian, and began to think about this thread. I was wondering how long Fabbri will be able to stick to the boys-own shenanigans though Vespasian's career. At some point he is going to have move towards a political novel. I wonder how his market will deal with it?

[MelodySRV]

I'm going to have to agree with eggs on this one. Yes, story is king, but if you don't know your craft at least to a point, your story is going to get lost behind the butchered words.

The reader needs to understand what you are saying. If your writing is so muddled that they can't follow a story, then no one is going to look at you twice. But if you can get past the basics and into the beginning of intermediate, then your story will be what rules you out from everyone else.

[Deb Kinnard]

Originally Posted by Jamesaritchie

The trad publishers, and millions of readers, won't even know you're gone.

This, yes. But the trade publishers aren't that good, anymore, at making us readers aware of good authors with good books to be bought. I read a lot of historical romance, and the last time I saw a decent historical with an end cap in a bookstore was 2-3 years ago.

This isn't going to turn into a rant about trade publishing, not by my will, but I'm increasingly convinced those houses do not know what they want to be in this changing industry. In my reading market of choice, they seem to be intent on pumping out book after book by the same old people with the same old covers (how often can you see a woman's half-nude back and be attracted to the book?), with the same old stories, nothing innovative or new or even interesting.

My take as a book buyer, both e- and print.

[Flicka]

Originally Posted by Jamesaritchie

Might as well reverse the fingers and aim them at yourself. The trad publishers, and millions of readers, won't even know you're gone.

No, probably not. But for me, myself, that might be one way to be a successful, in the sense Bob Dylan used the word; "a man is a success if he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night and inbetween does what he wants to""." So writing the books I want to is doing what I want. If I could make money on writing those I'd be a complete success, but if I wrote books I didn't want to I'd never be a success because I'd always be stuck doing something else than I want to.

Note: I am still hoping for trad publishing, but actually finishing a manuscript and pubbing it will have to come first (thank God I'm getting back on my feet after the hiatus last year).

[pdr]

J Ritchie.

Who cares?

How many writers published traditionally are household names? Frankly publishing is such a numbers game now and trad publishing seems to have lost its way.

Writers can spread their creative wings and experiment with the many form of publishing available.

For too long we've been brainwashed with a sort of Emperor's New Clothes idea by the publishing world. We've been taught to scorn those who cannot get their book to an agent and then a publisher. Time for we writers to expand our thinking horizons a little.

[angeliz2k]

Originally Posted by pdr

J Ritchie.

Who cares?

How many writers published traditionally are household names? Frankly publishing is such a numbers game now and trad publishing seems to have lost its way.

Writers can spread their creative wings and experiment with the many form of publishing available.

For too long we've been brainwashed with a sort of Emperor's New Clothes idea by the publishing world. We've been taught to scorn those who cannot get their book to an agent and then a publisher. Time for we writers to expand our thinking horizons a little.

PDR, I agree.

I dislike the submission process as it works now. It leaves a very bitter flavor in my mouth to grovel at the feet of the almighty Agent, only to receive . . . nothing. That isn't to say I haven't gotten full requests; I have. But more often than not, the agents don't even bother with a form rejection. And I don't come across as sub-par.

I know agents are busy. I interned briefly at an agency. I know. (BTW, I don't like excuses. I'm looking at you, agents.)

But I also work at a scientific journal, and let me tell you, these folks would shit bricks if they received the kind of treatment that fiction writers receive. Every single submission, unless it's clearly from a crackpot, is seen by an eminent scientist and vetted. Sometimes, this results in a form rejection, but even a majority of those are accompanied by comments from the eminent scientist who rejected it. And we get 20,000+ submissions a year!

There has to be some way to offer more to the authors who are not crackpots. Honestly, I'm not sure the crazies (and they're out there!) need more than a form rejection, but for those that are legitimate possibilities, I feel something more is in order. Am I bitter? Quizas. But I'm hardly the only one who feels this way.

I don't think there's an answer, because agents do serve a necessary role, weeding out the substandard stuff. The problem with the "free-market" approach (ie, write and sell your own stuff) is that 1) how will people find you? and 2) how will anyone know your stuff is better than the junk that it's floating amongst? Already, there is a shit-ton of, well, shit out there. I wouldn't want to read most that tripe. How do I, as a reader, find the stuff that isn't tripe? It's not like I can take your, the author's, word for it. Hence agents, traditional publishers, and bookstores. Maybe they're tastes aren't great; I'm not convinced their tastes are worse than they've ever been. Poor writing has always made its way into print.

It will be interesting to see how things evolve in the next decade or two. For now, I'm willing to play the game. The game might change, or I might get royally fed up with it and choose another game (frisbee? badmitton? curling?). But for now . . .

[Evangeline]

Originally Posted by angeliz2k

There has to be some way to offer more to the authors who are not crackpots. Honestly, I'm not sure the crazies (and they're out there!) need more than a form rejection, but for those that are legitimate possibilities, I feel something more is in order.

I do agree with your sentiments, but there is a way for non-crackpot authors to get in touch with agents outside of the query process: pitch sessions at writers' conferences. ;-) That's probably why most are so expensive--hopefully weed the crazies out of the equation.

Many agents also offer or auction critiques (there's an auction ending on the 31st: http://brendanovak.auctionanything.com/) on blogs or Twitter.

[angeliz2k]

Originally Posted by Evangeline

I do agree with your sentiments, but there is a way for non-crackpot authors to get in touch with agents outside of the query process: pitch sessions at writers' conferences. ;-) That's probably why most are so expensive--hopefully weed the crazies out of the equation.

Many agents also offer or auction critiques (there's an auction ending on the 31st: http://brendanovak.auctionanything.com/) on blogs or Twitter.

Writers conferences aren't options for most people, including me. I can't pay the money and take the time off from work.

[Deb Kinnard]

The fact that agents will actually hear you out at conferences -- which many authors cannot afford to attend -- is increasingly hacking me off. I'm unagented now, by my choice, and I find I feel freer to do/write what I like, and go to bed happier at the end of the day. But that's just me. If I do go to my main conference this year, I'd love to ask an agent, "Would you listen to my pitch for this same project via snail or e-mail if I wasn't sitting in your face? And would I actually get a 'no-thanks' in lieu of total silence as a reply?"

But my current plan is not to go this year. It's the wrong year for me to go, since I have nothing pitch-ready and everything that's finished is already contracted. And I don't think it's right at my stage to be deliberately provocative.

It's falling in line with many other areas of endeavor nowadays -- them who has, gets. I detest the idea that able writers with interesting ideas cannot get them across to the reader due to mere lack of money.