# How do published authors get away with it?



## Trick (Feb 20, 2015)

Just wanted this off my chest. I've received a lot of writing advice over the years and appreciated, if not employed, all of it. One of those bits of advice I got was, "Never describe someone by having them look at themselves in a mirror, it's very amateurish." 

I agreed with the advice and eliminated the technique from my toolbox, as I have done with other things after mulling over advice.

Yet, here I sit reading a published book that is currently generating revenue and the author describes a new POV character by having him look at himself in a mirror... even adding the cliched, "he barely even recognized his own reflection anymore." 

What. The. Hell. 

How did that get past an editor if it is so 'amateurish' ? I like the book so far but there have been so many unnecessary words I may not be able to finish it. The author will describe the action someone is performing and then write, "This left no doubt as to his intent." Um... if it left no doubt, why'd you need to tell me that? The description was more than enough. I don't fault the author for writing that, or even for leaving it in the second and third drafts. My issue is how did it get through an editor and, with it being as constant as it is, why didn't this author get a rejection letter?

This is just me ranting, which is why I posted in chit chat but I had to get it out. It has made me feel two distinct emotions: 1. Sadness at a lack of published quality. And 2. Hope, that if I am never as good at writing as I want to be, I can still get published... if I get to know the right people.


----------



## acapes (Feb 20, 2015)

I feel exactly the same, Trick - and I'll never reach the level I want but I hope I can still write something that readers enjoy, AND I can still push myself toward the goal of being 'better' at the same time. As long as I don't set an end point on that, I should hopefully be able to push myself forever.


----------



## Hainted (Feb 20, 2015)

Just as there are bad writers there are equally bad editors. My worst experience was the Avery Cates series by Jeff Somers. The first book in the series is one I would recommend for anyone looking for a good dystopian action story, but starting with book 2 the quality took a nose dive and by book 3 I was convinced I was reading unedited first drafts that had somehow published by mistake. So many things that should have been caught and fixed.

For example: Introduces a sidekick character in book 2 on page 20. She basically stands around and looks tough.Kills her off-page on page 35. Avery loses his mind and spends the next 3 and a half books mourning her. Mentor who played a significant role in book one dies in book 2? He just blows it off and never mentions him again.


----------



## Devor (Feb 20, 2015)

In a nutshell, stop giving that much credence to writing advice.  I am frequently surprised to see myself in the mirror AND I look every day. That's life.  Forget some bookseller's pet peeves list and develop your own tastes for these things.


----------



## 2WayParadox (Feb 20, 2015)

I think the hidden answer to this question is the reason why you picked up the book in the first place. So, Trick, why did you pick up the book?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 20, 2015)

Part of the problem Trick is that you're getting better as a writer. You're also developing a style, learning about structure, & recognizing storytelling devices. When that happens, we start to notice things most people will not see.

I'm much harder to please now, as a reader/movie watcher than I was 10 years ago. Stories don't often surprise me. I've also had to learn to turn off my internal writer and just be a reader if I want to enjoy a story. That isn't always easy when characters are describing themselves in mirrors. That's especially true when you've trained yourself to read critically.

However, what I've noticed is... If the story is engaging, if I'm immersed, the writing doesn't matter anymore, at least not as much. That's why I'm in the "story > writing" camp. A really good story with great characters can pull me in so deeply that I won't notice the writing at all. That was a valuable lesson.


----------



## stephenspower (Feb 20, 2015)

As an editor, when I was doing fiction back at Avon, I had a standing rule to reject any book with mirror exposition. Then I pulled a novel out of slush and was loving it until...in that one case, I let it go and might not even have changed it once I bought it because the rest of the book was so good. Beauty needs a birthmark to keep it honest. The book, btw, was George Galdorisi's CORONADO CONSPIRACY.


----------



## Telcontar (Feb 20, 2015)

Lots of very popular books make what one might call "rookie" mistakes. I'm reading through Abercrombies First Law series right now, and he has poorly contrived infodumps fairly often. The information isn't always particularly relevant, either.

But that's okay, because the books are still very good. You can get away with a LOT of things if your overall product is still compelling enough.


----------



## Russ (Feb 20, 2015)

When you are unpublished one of the things you want to do is make sure you don't give editors a reason to reject you.  Poor writing like that is a reason to reject you.  

There are lots of traditionally published writers, some very very successful ones who have poor craft.   But for each of those there are thousands who have been rejected for the same reasons whose works don't see print.

I like running into books like that.  I immediately think.  "If that can get published surely I can!" and it gives me a burst of energy.  But I don't disrespect my craft because someone else does.

Some people are so overwhelming good at other stuff it makes you forget about their craft gaffs.  

Some people get lazy after they have some success.

Lots of reasons poor material gets published.


----------



## Penpilot (Feb 20, 2015)

Never say never. Just because someone says never to do something doesn't make it gospel. There will always be good and bad reasons to use a technique or trick. And it may or may not be effective.

No writer is flawless, and no writer follows all the 'rules' that get tossed around. And when a 'rule' gets broken, the writer usually thinks it's for a good reason. It may not be the case, but again, no writer is flawless.

Also, as mentioned above, you're learning as a writer right now, and you're hypersensitive to these things. It happens to everyone and as you become more experienced, you'll learn how to switch it on and off, and to better judge if something works or not, instead of auto-judging it as always being wrong.

Never doing something just because someone said so is a poor reason not to do it. Exploring and understanding the dos/don'ts and trying to understand when and why something doesn't work is IMHO the better approach. For every "don't" out there there is someone who did it and did it well. And for every "do" there's someone who did and did it poorly.

There's a Writing Excuses episode where Brandon Sanderson et al. talk about this. They said that they went through periods of when they couldn't switch that editor off, and because of that, couldn't enjoy certain movies and books. Every perceived flaw jumped out at them and they kept getting booted from the story, and once they saw these flaws, they became predisposed to thinking the story was bad. But once they got over that, they could start enjoying things again. Not ignoring the flaws, but putting them in proper perspective. One glance at a mirror doesn't destroy a story. One adverb doesn't mean bad writer. But add enough of them together, there will be a tipping point.

You have to realize there are two types of reading, reading as the writer, and reading as the audience. The average reader won't notice things like looking into a mirror or adverb and adjective usage. All they notice is if the story clicks for them.

Now, there may be better choices to get certain things across than a character looking in the mirror, or maybe, for the purposes of the author it was good enough. For me, I look for stuff like this in my own writing, and I determine if there's a missed opportunity to do something better. Sometimes there is an opportunity, but other times there isn't because of certain reasons.


----------



## acapes (Feb 20, 2015)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> That's why I'm in the "story > writing" camp. A really good story with great characters can pull me in so deeply that I won't notice the writing at all. That was a valuable lesson.



Agreed! Storytelling is a more useful skill for me than writing itself. Need both of course, but one thing writers typically notice and the other is typically noticed by readers.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 20, 2015)

There could be several reasons why the book made it past the editor. One, the author is established and the publisher knows it's going to sell. That pretty well trumps other considerations.

Two, the editor decided it wasn't worth the time and effort to rewrite. Let it slide.

Three, the editor flat missed it.

Four, the established author demanded it be in there and the publisher let him have his way. See Point One.

There are probably others. But here's the thing. You need to measure this sample against the number of submissions that were rejected because of this and other authorly contrivances. Just because one or two get through doesn't make it a good idea. So be of good cheer. The advice is still sound. You may not be able to avoid shooting yourself in the foot, but at least you can try not aiming at your ankles.


----------



## Ruby (Feb 21, 2015)

Devor said:


> In a nutshell, stop giving that much credence to writing advice.  I am frequently surprised to see myself in the mirror AND I look every day. That's life.  Forget some bookseller's pet peeves list and develop your own tastes for these things.



Hi Trick, I agree with Devor. "Rules" are made to be broken!

When I started writing my current WIP, I used first person POV and I remember asking how to describe my MC without having her look in a mirror. One of the suggestions I received was to have someone comment on her appearance: 

"Oh, you look so beautiful today and I love your sparkling blue eyes!" etc.

 That seemed more contrived than the mirror! 

 My solution was to write the WIP in 3rd person POV.

However, most people check their appearance in a mirror at least once a day. Even using 3rd person POV my MC looks in a mirror to find out whether her invisibility ring has worked.

The mirror device has also been used to show that someone is a vampire. 
(Anne Rice book, I forget which one.)

There's also the old joke about a man who still thinks he's young:

"This morning, I looked in the mirror and I thought, ' Who's that old man wearing my pyjamas?' "


----------



## Trick (Feb 21, 2015)

Devor said:


> In a nutshell, stop giving that much credence to writing advice.  I am frequently surprised to see myself in the mirror AND I look every day. That's life.  Forget some bookseller's pet peeves list and develop your own tastes for these things.



I don't give that much credence, I take it in stride as best I can and try to employ the advice that works for me. My point isn't that the advice matters so much, it's when I hear the same advice from so many sources and then I see it published that I just get... weary. This particular author is the friend of another, somewhat famous author and I can't help but think that held some sway at choosing time. I feel like I'm working toward something that he bypassed. It's really just a jealous rant, to be honest.




Ruby said:


> When I started writing my current WIP, I used first person POV and I remember asking how to describe my MC without having her look in a mirror. One of the suggestions I received was to have someone comment on her appearance



Actually, there was a great opportunity to describe the character like five sentences later. I think that's what really irked me and got my blood up.

In truth, the story is great. The writing is just not top notch and that's been my focus for so long, it's hard to look past it as TAS mentioned.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 22, 2015)

acapes said:


> Agreed! Storytelling is a more useful skill for me than writing itself. Need both of course, but one thing writers typically notice and the other is typically noticed by readers.



Yes. Writers sometimes suffer from not being able to see the forest for the trees. 

Lots of commerically succesful writers get bashed by their colleagues for writing ability or execution. The story is what makes a work popular. Even bad writing has seen success because the story resonates with an audience.


----------



## ThinkerX (Feb 22, 2015)

I recently subscribed to both 'Fantasy and Science Fiction' and 'Asimov's.' 

F&SF arrived first.  I liked the stories, but couldn't help but also thought - 'get right down to it, the best stories in the 'Challenge' section at MS are also this good...and some of them may be better.  For that matter, a few of my tales, suitably polished, may be better.'  I found myself wondering if these stories were published more because of the authors name - about half had conventionally published novels to their credit.

Asimov's I am still looking over.  So far, a couple good stories, and a couple others that didn't 'click' with me.  Again, though, I have seen stories of equal or better quality on this site.  But what really stuck in my mind was a sort of comment piece in which the author made a comparison of sorts between the conventionally published authors and 'indie's of the self published variety.  He made a distinction between self-pub and small press, and books and magazines.  Pretty much, his argument came down to

'I'm sure there are many great self published stories, some of which are superior to those published by conventional means, but where do I start?'  He didn't trust the reviews, didn't consider the publishing stat's relevant, and admitted that even the best publisher editors often had 'off days.'   He seemed to be advocating for some sort of editorial/independent review mechanism built into the self publishing model.

One of the really major reasons I subscribed to these magazines was for the adds - yes adds.  Perhaps it's just me being a lingering relic from another age, but these days unless a new book appears at the library or on the ever shrinking shelves at the supermarket, I don't see it - and I KNOW there are a great many new books out there.  So, what I see are mostly best sellers and the books of the moment, and most of them appear aimed towards a YA audience.  I figured at least some authors of offbeat books would try taking out adds in magazines like the ones I subscribed to...

...but instead, all I see is the same handful of best sellers and books of the moment.


----------



## 2WayParadox (Feb 23, 2015)

@ThinkerX: If you're looking for Indie recommendations, check out Creativity Hacker, he has a ton of books that survived his Immerse or Die challenge.


----------



## ThinkerX (Feb 23, 2015)

> @ThinkerX: If you're looking for Indie recommendations, check out Creativity Hacker, he has a ton of books that survived his Immerse or Die challenge.



Already done that.


----------



## Devor (Feb 23, 2015)

Trick said:


> I don't give that much credence, I take it in stride as best I can and try to employ the advice that works for me. My point isn't that the advice matters so much, it's when I hear the same advice from so many sources and then I see it published that I just get... weary. This particular author is the friend of another, somewhat famous author and I can't help but think that held some sway at choosing time. I feel like I'm working toward something that he bypassed. It's really just a jealous rant, to be honest.



To be blunt, rules are for idiots.*  Rules are for people who haven't yet developed the skill to know when something works well or doesn't, so they fall back on rules to help push them up off the bottom.  And the rules should do that.  If you're not sure how strong your writing is, then don't include a mirror scene.  It's one of the first things that a weaker writer will think of to get a look at the character's face, so it shows up all the time in the slushpile and feels very cliche.  If you want to keep off the bottom of the pile, avoid that scene.  That makes for very good advice.

But a master replaces "the rules" with skill, nuance and a powerful gut check.  The mirror scene might be cliche.  But it's also a good opportunity for a character to _react to himself_.  Think about the first scene in Dexter, or a high school kid getting ready for school.  These are opportunities for the mirror to show your readers something important about the character.

There are ways to make the mirror scene different and fresh if you're thinking about it differently than a rookie.  If you're thinking, "I need a chance to describe my character's face.  Ohh, get the mirror!" then you should stop and think twice.  If you're thinking, "I'm going through the day in the life of a Gandalf-level wizard, and I want to take a minute to make him feel normal, and maybe do something funny with that contrast - maybe I could do a mirror scene where Gandalf plucks a grey hair out of his nose, turns it invisible, and puts it back...." then you're thinking on a level where you can decide comfortably to go with it.

Yeah, what everyone else has said is true.  Published authors can get away with things, and cliches can quickly become "pet peeves" that annoy people even when they're justified.  But there's a more subtle difference in the approach behind the scene, a meta-difference, that can explain why rules are meant to be broken.

If this was the Writing Excuses podcast, you're prompt would be, "Write a mirror scene exposition that's interesting and works and tells us something interesting about the character that you couldn't do in any other way."  Because you can do it.


((edit))

*This is an expression I grew up with, and I don't use it with the intent of actively calling anybody an idiot.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 23, 2015)

" rules are for idiots."

Is that a rule?


----------



## Svrtnsse (Feb 23, 2015)

skip.knox said:


> " rules are for idiots."
> 
> Is that a rule?



Yes. Yes it is.

Edit: Wait a minute...


----------



## Devor (Feb 23, 2015)

skip.knox said:


> " rules are for idiots."
> 
> Is that a rule?





Svrtnsse said:


> Yes. Yes it is.
> 
> Edit: Wait a minute...





I . . . . err, I wouldn't suggest making it into, y'know . . . . into a real ruley rule, for yourself.  Unless you need to.  Y'know?


----------



## Ireth (Feb 23, 2015)

Rules are more like guidelines anyway, amirite?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 23, 2015)

Ireth said:


> Rules are more like guidelines anyway, amirite?



I'll buy that. Even then, rules & guidelines are personal and somewhat unique to each author in terms of those they choose to implement & combine to form a desired style.

The rule set Elmore Leonard worked with worked for Elmore Leonard. Several of his rules found their way onto my personal list, but mine still differs in some respects. 

And yes, we should all be willing to break our own personal set of rules if we're doing so consciously and for good reason.


----------



## Trick (Feb 23, 2015)

Devor said:


> Rules are for people who haven't yet developed the skill to know when something works well or doesn't, so they fall back on rules to help push them up off the bottom.



I agree with you about reaching a level of skill where rules can be broken and be broken well. However, IMHO, this writer used the mirror scene exactly how any newbie would. There was no deeper reason for it, no crafty, new employment of an old standard. The character just stood in front of a mirror and (via 3rd PPOV) described his appearance, commenting on how he barely recognized his reflection because he was getting old... It stood out like a sore thumb.  To be honest, if it had either been necessary or done in a way that revealed something about the character other than his appearance I would have applauded. This book is fraught with small problems like this that don't work for me as a reader and bother me as a fledgling writer. 

But, like TAS said, the story is good and that can make all the difference.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Feb 23, 2015)

Sorry if this is almost completely unrelated to the original post, but I can't resist ranting a bit about rules - or at least explaining my point of view (such as it is at the moment).

I believe that in order to be a good writer, you need to understand how your readers process the information you present them. This will help you decide what information to present and how. Once you understand this, you don't need any rules, you'll just write like all the muses of the world are channeling their creative energies through you.

Unfortunately, reaching that level of understanding is not easy, and that's where the rules come in.

The rules are shortcuts to, or replacements for, actual understanding.

I believe that most of the basic/common rules of writing are set up in such a way, that if you follow them you will produce an acceptable result. Your texts will be written in such a way that your readers will be able to process them without effort or displeasure. Your story may not necessarily be any good, but at least you won't throw your readers off by "bad" writing.

Sticking with the rules allows you to satisfy some kind of lowest common denominator when it comes to writing acceptable prose.

I don't necessarily believe in sticking to the rules for their own sake, but I believe that doing so it a good step towards the greater goal of increasing your understanding of how readers process text.


----------



## Devor (Feb 23, 2015)

Trick said:


> However, IMHO, this writer used the mirror scene exactly how any newbie would.



Yeah, I might've gotten a little off topic in my rumble there.

Still, in my opinion, whenever rules come up, I get the impression that they're more about staying off the bottom than about climbing to the top.  If you want to climb to the top, at some point you need to stop thinking about the rules.  Whether or not the mirror scene is cliche is ultimately a small factor in the grand scheme of the book, and it only matters to people who keep a checklist because they're looking for quick indicators that an author is lacking in skill.

Yes, it's a low skill scene.  It's creatively lazy.  A lot of editors and readers would take it as a red flag for the book's quality.

But to me, that "red flag" is so far from being the important element of a book that it's hardly worth knowing by comparison.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 23, 2015)

Writing rules shouldn't be viewed as strict "must or must not" activities necessary for good writing. After all, what is considered good writing is subjective.  

Rather, think of writing rules as a way to learn from those that have come before. Think of them as methods and techniques you can practice and use for experimentation. It's a way to begin the study of craft, just like any other endeavor.  You couldn't just wake one morning and decide to be a world class chef. Could you? Doubtful.  

How do you learn to cook? By following recipes or the instructions of established chefs. Maybe you read their books. Maybe you watch them on TV. You learn about flavors & different combinations of foods. You learn cooking techniques which generally apply & you learn about methods specific to certain cultural cuisines.  

Somewhere along the way, given enough time & earnest effort, you begin to develop your own style. Maybe it's a fusion of ethnic dishes with foods in your local mainstream. Maybe it's unique combinations of foods specific to you. Whatever it is, the process of jumping forth from what others have built is the evolution of style.  

Writing is no different. Rules are there for a reason. To experiment with & to learn from those that have come before us. To study what has worked and resonated.   

However, to become the master, you'll eventually need to break away and head off in your own direction. Artists regarded as masters rarely appeal to their audiences because they are similar to another.  

However, there's also nothing wrong with simply being a good cook. It depends on what you want.


----------

