# Do these things bother others as much as they do me?



## BWFoster78 (Jan 18, 2013)

Believe it or not, I've grown more tolerant of certain style/technique issues, but, in reading _A Memory of Light_, I've found a couple of things that irritate the heck out of me.

I think it's because, to me, a pure style issue is a matter of taste and is subjective.  Some things, however, can, presumably, be proven illogical from an objective viewpoint.  It's these issues that bother me the most.

1. Then.  You're writing a sequential story.  Let's say I have, "Joe walked out of his house.  He strode down the street.  Reaching the market, he made a left turn."  The reader understands that first, he left the house, second, he went down the street, and third, he, at some point, made a left turn.  Writing, "Joe walked out fo the house.  Then, he strode down the street.  Then, reaching the market, he made a left turn." is unnecessary.  In this situation, the word "then" is simply not needed and should be deleted.

2. Unnecessary speech tags.  Multiple times, Sanderson does stuff like this:  "I am speaking," Rand said, turning to another character.  "Said" is completely superfluous.  We can tell by the open and close quotes that Rand is freaking speaking, dude.  "I am speaking."  Rand turned to another character.  This gets rid of both an unnecessary word and comma.  He also has long paragraphs of a character doing something followed by, in the same paragraph, dialogue with a speech tag.  Really?

Overall, I think his writing is competent and have, for the most part, found his books enjoyable.  I can't help but feel that a professional writer shouldn't be doing stuff like this.

Am I being too harsh, here?  Are my expectations too high?  Is there a mitigating factor to what I perceive as errors?

/rant

I haven't gone back and looked at other stuff I've read of his.  Perhaps Jordan did it this way, and he felt the need to be consistent.


----------



## Telcontar (Jan 18, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I haven't gone back and looked at other stuff I've read of his.  Perhaps Jordan did it this way, and he felt the need to be consistent.



That would be some ridiculous attention to detail there, if so. But I doubt it.

If the book is good, chances are these things wouldn't bother me. Speech tags are something I've never thought worthy of strong opinions. Especially is it just "<character name> said" they are basically invisible to me (which is how many writers prefer it) save in really egregious situations.

The "then" issue might make me notice if it happens a _lot_ but even then (heh heh) I'd probably just learn to glaze over it. I agree that it is unnecessary, though.


----------



## Cursive (Jan 18, 2013)

I personally am not convinced of this argument that every word should be as efficient as possible. This is art not a business report. If an author presents a sequence of actions that all start with 'then', there's probably a reason. Repetition is tool like any other. If an author goes on a tangent and describes the knit of a rug for two pages, there's probably a reason. 

I've noticed a lot of pressure in the community to conform to these standards of efficiency and I think it robs people of their style to a certain degree. Most of the criticism I've seen is in this vein and I think it's unproductive for both the critic and the writer.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 18, 2013)

> I personally am not convinced of this argument that every word should be as efficient as possible. This is art not a business report. If an author presents a sequence of actions that all start with 'then', there's probably a reason. Repetition is tool like any other. If an author goes on a tangent and describes the knit of a rug for two pages, there's probably a reason.



I think you give too much credit to the author.

Granted that you apparently are of the artist mindset while I take a different tack.  We're naturally going to disagree on a lot of stuff.  Most of it, I'm willing to say, "It's a style difference."  You probably have a reason for wanting to do it that way.

I just don't buy it with these two issues.

Really, to me, if you're doing one of these two things, it's probably don't understand why it's bad.

The philosophy underpinning your argument is that anything you write is art and art is good no matter what else.

Sorry, but I think that's a bunch of horse hockey.  There is objectively bad writing.  If you take that premise further, it is possible to improperly apply a technique, and the resultant mistake has no artistic merit - it's just bad.



> I've noticed a lot of pressure in the community to conform to these standards of efficiency and I think it robs people of their style to a certain degree. Most of the criticism I've seen is in this vein and I think it's unproductive for both the critic and the writer.



I truly am not trying to rob anyone of their style, but I do want to help people become better writers.  I don't think that telling them, "You can do no wrong" helps.

I think it's incredibly productive to discuss why things may or may not be objectively wrong, but to say that nothing can possibly be wrong seems, let's just say, less than productive.

Note that my interpretation of your comments as promoting "nothing can be wrong" derive mainly from the, "This is art not a business report" statement.

If your message was meant to be more in line with saying that not every word should be efficient as possible, that's a different discussion. 

Overall, I'd agree that it is okay to include unnecessary words in an attempt to achieve a particular effect.  I just don't think that's the case here.  I think it's done out of either habit or ignorance.  Maybe there's a purpose that I can't see.


----------



## Sherman (Jan 18, 2013)

Personally in my own writing I try to eliminate speech tags as much as possible.  It makes the manuscript flow better.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 18, 2013)

Neither of those things both me in an otherwise good book. Things like the "said" in the Rand example, honestly who cares? So there's an extra word in it that is going to be invisible to most readers when their brains process it. I don't agree with the idea that conveying things in the least number of words possible is always the correct approach to begin with, and stuff like this appears to me to be the sort of things that aspiring writers obsess over (to their detriment) while successful authors (as evidenced by Sanderson) don't get bogged down in it.

That's my take 

EDIT: additional thought - there is a difference between reading like a writer and reading like a reader. The latter is more important in terms of success in selling books, because that's your audience. I suspect the vast majority of readers would not notice or care about either of these things.


----------



## CupofJoe (Jan 18, 2013)

Cursive said:


> I personally am not convinced of this argument that every word should be as efficient as possible. This is art not a business report. If an author presents a sequence of actions that all start with 'then', there's probably a reason. Repetition is tool like any other. If an author goes on a tangent and describes the knit of a rug for two pages, there's probably a reason.
> I've noticed a lot of pressure in the community to conform to these standards of efficiency and I think it robs people of their style to a certain degree. Most of the criticism I've seen is in this vein and I think it's unproductive for both the critic and the writer.


This is one reason why I rarely offer pieces up to criticism. I want to learn how to write better [and there are plenty of writers here that I like and have learnt from] but what I don't want to do is to learn to write like everyone else.
I like Joyce and  Hammett, Lovecraft and Pratchett, JRR Tolkien and JJ Rowlands. I can take the obscure and the gritty, the purple and the comic, the epic and the folksy.
For me when it comes to writing, once you get passed the basics of literacy and clarity [spelling, tenses etc.] it is up to the reader to decide if they think it is good. 
I will freely admit that if you want to write for profit then yes the rules are different.
But as John Peel once said "There is stuff that you like and the rest..."


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 18, 2013)

The "then" thing would bother me if it was done as egregiously as in your example...unless there was an artistic reason 

I come firmly down on the other side of things with speech tags. I like speech tags in general and some of my least favorite moments in a book are getting lost in a conversation because a writer thought they were unnecessary. I not only like speech tags, I like varied speech tags beyond "said". 

I was agreeing with your post before you got to the examples though. I too find things that are illogical and they really rub me the wrong way, but I feel you're operating on a set of premises that are not shared and so what seems illogical to you may not to someone else. 

If you preface your logic by saying your premises that "unnecessary words should be deleted" and further define "unnecessary" to be any word that is not absolutely necessary for understanding of the actual events of the book, then yes, those examples are illogical. However, I don't think many people would agree with that definition of "unnecessary", including yourself. 

On the other hand, it seems to be that you view the words as slack that should be cut. If again, we take that viewpoint, then yes, they are illogical, but maybe there's a reason to them and they're not just slack. Maybe if you cut that slack you'll accidentally expose your nether regions and get arrested, I dunno'.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 18, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Am I being too harsh, here?  Are my expectations too high?  Is there a mitigating factor to what I perceive as errors?



I'd say you are being a writer, not a reader, and you are basically looking for things to fix in a book that for all intents and purposes is already finished. I think you mostly need to relax a bit.

Being critical-minded isn't always a bad thing, but it's not always a good thing either. We have to remember that _normal people_ - the people who are _supposed _to read these books - mostly don't notice tiny details like that, and that leaving "said" and "then" in might just be a matter of getting the right flow and rythm, rather than making the text ultra-efficient. These are not important issues, at least not for the intended audience.

Anyway, Brandon Sanderson is a published and fairly popular author. He's been in the business for eight years, and teaches creative writing at the Brigham Young University when he's not writing books, and is part of a long-running podcast on the subject of writing. His style probably isn't _flawless, _but I'm still inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt and assume he probably knows what he's doing. If he left some thens and saids in there, he probably thought they did more good than harm. And, apparently, nobody in his writing group nor his editor saw fit to disagree.

Hell, for all we know, it's possible his publisher _told him_ to add more speach tags.

(As for the late Robert Jordan, I don't know how much of Memory of Light he is responsible for, but if I don't want to argue with Sanderson I sure as hell don't want to argue with the ghost of Jordan.)


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 18, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Neither of those things both me in an otherwise good book. Things like the "said" in the Rand example, honestly who cares? So there's an extra word in it that is going to be invisible to most readers when their brains process it. I don't agree with the idea that conveying things in the least number of words possible is always the correct approach to begin with, and stuff like this appears to me to be the sort of things that aspiring writers obsess over (to their detriment) while successful authors (as evidenced by Sanderson) don't get bogged down in it.
> 
> That's my take
> 
> EDIT: additional thought - there is a difference between reading like a writer and reading like a reader. The latter is more important in terms of success in selling books, because that's your audience. I suspect the vast majority of readers would not notice or care about either of these things.



While I understand exactly where you're coming from, I have to say that Sanderson's writing, while competent, does not wow me, and that's before I started reading like a writer.

I think it's not out of the realm of reasonableness to suggest that a lack of attention to detail in such areas of these could be indicative of an overall lack that does impact even the average reader.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 18, 2013)

> I'd say you are being a writer, not a reader, and you are basically looking for things to fix in a book that for all intents and purposes is already finished. I think you mostly need to relax a bit.



I think it says something how much these things stood out to me.  I've completed 4 other books this year before reading A Memory of Light.  I'm sure all had something that I would consider subobptimal writing.  Of those four, the "errors" only stood out to me in one.  In the others, I became engrossed enough in the writing that anything else didn't bother me.



> Being critical-minded isn't always a bad thing, but it's not always a good thing either. We have to remember that normal people - the people who are supposed to read these books - mostly don't notice tiny details like that, and that leaving "said" and "then" in might just be a matter of getting the right flow and rythm, rather than making the text ultra-efficient. These are not important issues, at least not for the intended audience.



I getcha; I really do.  I would say, however, that this advice presents a real danger.  If you let the little things go, are you not inviting trouble in that you may let larger issues slide as well?

I agree.  Don't focus on the minutia so much that you miss the larger picture.

On the other hand, should you be trying to be the best writer that you can?  If you see something that doesn't work, an obvious mistake, should you say, "It's no big deal?"



> Anyway, Brandon Sanderson is a published and fairly popular author. He's been in the business for eight years, and teaches creative writing at the Brigham Young University when he's not writing books, and is part of a long-running podcast on the subject of writing. His style probably isn't flawless, but I'm still inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt and assume he probably knows what he's doing. If he left some thens and saids in there, he probably thought they did more good than harm. And, apparently, nobody in his writing group nor his editor saw fit to disagree.



By this logic, I think we should all try to write more like Amanda Hocking.  She's published and has made a lot more money than Sanderson.  That person who wrote 50 Shades made a lot of money too.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 18, 2013)

> I come firmly down on the other side of things with speech tags. I like speech tags in general and some of my least favorite moments in a book are getting lost in a conversation because a writer thought they were unnecessary.



Are you saying that you feel they are necessary in a paragraph where the character acts?


----------



## SeverinR (Jan 18, 2013)

Repeating then, and then, is not needed, if obviously sequential.

If its obvious who is speaking why tell the reader.
If in doubt spell it out.  Better to know then have the reader distracted by wondering who in the group just said that.
If doubt should be there, someone in the crowd yells, the reader and characters don't know, then one option just let it hang there, or say from somewhere in the crowd.


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 18, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Are you saying that you feel they are necessary in a paragraph where the character acts?



Not at all, although as long as they flow I don't object to their inclusion. 

I am saying that I dislike long discussions without speech tags though. 

Even if it is only two people talking and the only thing relevant (or the only thing that wants to be conveyed is their dialogue), eventually I am going to blink and not know who is talking to whom. There are other ways to get around it (for instance, making their actions interesting/relevant, or dramatizing their internal reactions/plans of response), but if the author wants to tell me that "Bob yelled" or "Sue breathlessly said" or "Joe chimed in" or "Mary screamed out" then I don't have a problem with it. 

I would probably find issue with saying "said" after each dialogue. When I think of someone saying something, I usually think of a very "normal" way of saying it. If each person's tag is "said" then the conversation must be rather boring.


----------



## Butterfly (Jan 18, 2013)

Without tags, I tend to loose who's speaking when I have to turn a page... then I'm completely lost as to who's saying what... It's worse when there are more than two speakers.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 18, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I think it says something how much these things stood out to me.  I've completed 4 other books this year before reading A Memory of Light.  I'm sure all had something that I would consider subobptimal writing.  Of those four, the "errors" only stood out to me in one.  In the others, I became engrossed enough in the writing that anything else didn't bother me.



Fair enough. Though, that makes this sound like a specific problem with this book. You sort of made it sound like you were adressing a more general thing.



> I getcha; I really do.  I would say, however, that this advice presents a real danger.  If you let the little things go, are you not inviting trouble in that you may let larger issues slide as well?
> 
> I agree.  Don't focus on the minutia so much that you miss the larger picture.
> 
> On the other hand, should you be trying to be the best writer that you can?  If you see something that doesn't work, an obvious mistake, should you say, "It's no big deal?"



Oh, I'm not saying you should let anything go _when you write._ You should definitely try to write the best book you can. But when you _read _someone elses book, focusing on these things have no real benefits. It just makes your reading experience more annoying.

Also, the methods that work for you may not work for others. There are no rules to this, and everyone have their own standards and strategies. Getting worked up about how other people write their books seem kinda pointless. It's probably more constructive to focus on the writers you actually admire instead.



> By this logic, I think we should all try to write more like Amanda Hocking.  She's published and has made a lot more money than Sanderson.  That person who wrote 50 Shades made a lot of money too.



Yes, well, that's sort of my point. Clearly these issues aren't actually _important, _or those writers wouldn't be as popular as they are. They made it work some other way.



SeverinR said:


> Repeating then, and then, is not needed, if obviously sequential.



I could see myself do that if I'm trying to give a certain impression with it. Like:

"John poured some wine into his cup and drank it. Then he poured some more wine and drank again. Then he decided not to bother with the cup anymore."

Just off the top of my head.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 18, 2013)

> although as long as they flow I don't object to their inclusion



I don't get your logic here.  From what I know of you, you seem to be a lot like me in that you value careful consideration and logic.

If the tag clearly isn't needed, why wouldn't you object to its inclusion?

"It's just not needed!" Brian said, throwing his keyboard across the room.

versus

"It's just not needed!"  Brian threw his keyboard across the room.

Do you not know from the beat that Brian is the speaker?  Does "said" add anything at all?



> I am saying that I dislike long discussions without speech tags though.



I don't think that anyone is disagreeing with you on that point.  I certainly am not, assuming that you mean that it's clear who is speaking moreso than that speech tags are necessary.



> if the author wants to tell me that "Bob yelled" or "Sue breathlessly said" or "Joe chimed in" or "Mary screamed out" then I don't have a problem with it.



To me, this is a purely subjective consideration.  I prefer not to use such tags.  Does it lessen my enjoyment of a story if they are used?  To an extent.  Do I say using them are "wrong?"  No.  If I like chocolate and you like vanilla, I'm not saying you're wrong for liking vanilla, just that I like vanilla better.

My overall point is that some things in writing can be considered wrong from an objective viewpoint.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 18, 2013)

> Fair enough. Though, that makes this sound like a specific problem with this book. You sort of made it sound like you were adressing a more general thing.



In a way, I am.  If they weren't there, they wouldn't have added to drawing me out of the story.



> focusing on these things have no real benefits. It just makes your reading experience more annoying.



I'm not sure I have much of a choice at what jumps out at me.  It's not like I'm looking for it as much as it jumps out at me.



> Yes, well, that's sort of my point. Clearly these issues aren't actually important, or those writers wouldn't be as popular as they are. They made it work some other way.



If I could emulate either of those two to make a lot of money, I don't know that I would.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 18, 2013)

They jump out at you because you're a writer. The vast majority of readers will not notice this, nor will it be sufficient to pull them out of the story, in my view. Writing it your way isn't going to pull them out or cause them problems, either. In the end, as far as the reader is concerned, I suspect it is a complete wash.


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 18, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> If the tag clearly isn't needed, why wouldn't you object to its inclusion?
> 
> "It's just not needed!" Brian said, throwing his keyboard across the room.
> 
> ...


...the first one sounds better to me  although I might have thrown in, "Brian screamed in frustration, throwing his keyboard across the room."
...or "Brian bellowed out, throwing..."
...or "Brian roared in frustration, throwing..."

Anyway, to go back to your original point. You are not alone. I am starting to dread reading anymore because there are things that jump out at me and cause me to lose faith in novels at a rate I've never encountered before. 

In fact, I can't think of a book that I can read right now and enjoy it for its prose. If a book doesn't have a character, mystery or setting that hooks me in the first chapter or two, then I probably won't finish it because I can't get past my annoyance of the way they write.


----------



## Xaysai (Jan 18, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> ...the first one sounds better to me  although I might have thrown in, "Brian screamed in frustration, throwing his keyboard across the room."



Minor nitpick: "in frustration" is unnecessary because if you tell us he screams and throws the keyboard during a debate, we can assume he is frustrated. 

Personally, as a new writer, I think that dropping speech tags and unnecessary words forces me to find the most lean way to build a scene. If I have to be crystal clear about who is talking, I will need to add beats or actions to the dialogue. Done well, these can add to a scene or provide clues about the character.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 18, 2013)

Xaysai said:


> Personally, as a new writer, I think that dropping speech tags and unnecessary words forces me to find the most lean way to build a scene.



I think this is a good approach if you _want _to have lean and mean writing. But there is not reason one should feel compelled to write that way.


----------



## Xaysai (Jan 18, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I think this is a good approach if you _want _to have lean and mean writing. But there is not reason one should feel compelled to write that way.



By lean, I don't mean void of style or immersion. 

I mean, given two sentences which convey the EXACT SAME THING but one is 15 words longer than the other, which would you prefer to read?

Now take that sentence and multiply it by the other 25-40 sentences on the page, multiplied by the 300+ pages in the book, and you have a lot of bloat.

Honestly, I think it all comes down to the words themselves. Patrick Rothfuss can be wordy in NotW and WMF, but I love how his sentences flow and I don't find them to be bloated. However, I tried reading Russell Kirkpatrick the other day and couldn't get through 2 pages because he uses a lot of unnecessary descriptions and words.

I work a tremendous amount of hours per week, which limits my time. Reading a book can be a huge time investment. Therefore, I appreciate an author who tells the story in the leanest, "best" way possible.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 18, 2013)

I'd dispute that if one sentence is 15 words long it conveys the exact same thing. 

That said, I still think it boils down to stylistic concerns and personal preferences of the reader. I've read a lot of works where language itself was a huge part of the draw, and if the writer had followed the advice of presenting everything in the most lean, efficient way possible the work would have suffered greatly. As you said with Rothfuss, if you're going to write in that way you have to be good at it. if you're not, you'll make a mess of things. But assuming we're talking about a skilled writer, I do not always want the most lean prose. Sometimes, I do, but sometimes I prefer to read very wordy prose


----------



## Jamber (Jan 18, 2013)

Back in the 'good old days' there would have been an editor snipping for style... Often now there isn't, or editing is done cursorily (not to disparage editors –I'm one) and without much back-and-forth between writer and editor.

I must admit I find it hard to read books where the sentence structure is poor or the writing contains many redundant words. I read them as an editor, constantly pruning in my mind. It's infuriating. But as others have said there are many popular works that couldn't give two hoots about redundant words or poor phrasing. Sheer scruff-of-the-neck narrative pull covers a lot of sins.

However I agree with Steerpike, lean prose is just a style, a choice, not a compulsion. The ultimate I suppose in lean writing is Matthew Reilly, with not only one-word sentences but (sometimes) one-word paragraphs. It says what needs to be said, but not much else. We need some books that explore the 'else'...


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 18, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> They jump out at you because you're a writer. The vast majority of readers will not notice this, nor will it be sufficient to pull them out of the story, in my view. Writing it your way isn't going to pull them out or cause them problems, either. In the end, as far as the reader is concerned, I suspect it is a complete wash.



Steerpike,

I do not dispute that they jump out at me b/c I am a writer; the statement was in response to an implication that I'm looking for flaws in the writing.  I contend that that is not the case.  If the writing is good enough, it draws me in, and I don't see these things unless I deliberately put on my beta reader hat.  The book in question struggled to draw my attention at times (overall it's decent), and these thing jumped out at me. 

As a contention to your point, though, you seem to be saying that what writers think don't matter.  Writers are readers too, and influential ones at that as they typically have blogs.  If I like another writer's stuff, I'm going to tell people about it.  If enough writers do that, it can lead to a lot of success for the author.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 18, 2013)

Brian: 

I understood what you meant, I'm just suggesting that your threshold for when something gets to the point where it jumps out at you or pulls you from the story is probably much lower than the average reader, because of the fact that you're also a writer.

Writers are certainly readers as well, however if you had to pick a group, a) readers-only; or b) reader-writers to find success with, group a) is the much larger market. Sure, I suppose they can have some impact on the readers-only crowd, but I'm not sure it is that substantial in reality, particularly given that some of the enormous literary successes of the last decade or so (in terms of sales) have also been widely panned by writers.


----------



## PaulineMRoss (Jan 18, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> The book in question struggled to draw my attention at times (overall it's decent), and these thing jumped out at me.



I think this is the key. If a book is engrossing enough, even a writer, perhaps, will become so immersed that the odd extraneous word won't offend. But if the story is a little slow or dull... and I've read a few reviews of AMoL that suggest that it takes a long time to build up a head of steam.

Maybe the criticism here is not just at the micro-level of individual words, but also at the macro-level of the whole plot.


----------



## Devor (Jan 18, 2013)

A lot of the classics are translated from other languages.  The translated prose can be awful, but the writer's talent at storytelling still shows very clearly above those things.  I think it's a red herring to worry about this stuff.  That kind of editing is not writing.  Sure, we have to do that kind of editing, especially if we're self-published.  But it's the polish at the end.

More than excess words, I'm bothered by the excess pages which take characters too far off course and slow down the story's pacing.  Or the details which are just useless details, and do nothing to improve the mood and experience of the setting.

I do find the "then"s of the sample sentence to be annoying.  Of course, that was deliberate for the sample.  I've never been bothered by it in context.  I sometimes use words like _then_ to help speed up or slow down the momentum of a scene.

I think you'll find issues with anything if you look hard enough.


----------



## Leif Notae (Jan 18, 2013)

As if I haven't upset everyone over this enough as it is (and banged enough pots to make people want to puke and punch me in the face at the same time), both stances are correct in this debate.

Yes, it is evident there are "author problems" on a micro level with this book. The way a writer expresses himself is via the environment they are in or the teachers they learned it from. If no one told those teachers how to teach or they picked up bad habits from people with bad habits, then they will continue the bad habits. We might see them as bad habits, they will see them as normal. People will overlook them because they are not aware of the machinery and the wires and everything else. To them, it is just words on a page.

Yes, it is evident there is a "reader problem" on a macro level with this book. The demand for higher quality printed words dies a little with every generation, the  modern living giving someone a better way to say three words in one or morph a meaning into something that isn't there. In other words, the generations of readers become lazy. People with higher demands for quality will see the flaws and point them out, though it will sound like the nonsensical ravings of a madman instead. 

The "reading like a reader" and "reading like a writer" is a cop out. There is no such thing. You cannot extract the writer out of a writer when he reads, much like you cannot implant a writer into a reader to get them to understand writing. It is our nature, and our resonance, to be what we are. We cannot hide ourselves in our "work space", as it were.

So, I think we all can agree that Brian is right about the poor quality of writing in certain spots (as is his right), and everyone else is right in their stance about not caring (as is their right). 

And I am correct in saying Sanderson is the worst modern writer in the world, which is my right.

Thank goodness I don't write anymore.


----------



## Penpilot (Jan 18, 2013)

To me, maybe his editor didn't point out those possible edits or they did and that's the way Sanderson wanted to express things. I think you have a valid point in that things could be tightened up. I tend to notice things like that too, but I try to move beyond it and see how the story is told as a whole. From my experience, it's more important that the big picture of the story is written well. The small mechanical 'mistakes', people will forgive. 

I've had it where I've tightened up my prose so much, some of my readers said my sentences felt too punchy.


----------



## Cursive (Jan 18, 2013)

First off I'd like to say that I love this thread. Aesthetics is one of the more interesting departments of philosophy. It's like ethics without all the rape, and dead babies, and other needlessly grotesque examples. But also like ethics it's very hard to find ground from which to say things are objectively wrong, because the closest ground to do that on is subjective ground. Logic is by far man's greatest tool but, as schopenhauer laid out, it is a slave to the deeper parts of our brain, our will. It builds objectivity around our subjectivity. And this is great because it solidifies our subjectivity, it's the style that we are all trying to perfect, our own, inalienable style. The foolish thing to do is to think that our ideas about these things are based in something capital-T true. It's just not the case. 

With that said, there are still ways in which I think writing can be both better or worse. I emphasize that's it's better or worse and not good or bad. I'm not a huge fan of saying things are good, usually when I think my work is good it's followed by the word enough. I think an artist, writer, etc. Is merely employeed in settling for good enough. At least that's how it's always felt to me.  Things could always be tweaked, but it's better to write the next sentence and sketch more lines.  

I don't want to be misunderstood and have someone think I'm arguing a separate point than what I'm intending to describe. I think there is great merit to a 'lean' sentence. Certainly many authors have crafted a style that focuses and glorifies precision and brevity of that degree. BWFoster is completely right when he argues that when writing in this manner certain words are completely unnecessary. But only when writing in this manner. 

My original point is that there seem to be so many rules tossed around about writing that have nothing to do with grammar. I'm a firm believer that grammar is a cure all for writing problems. This is probably because I spent so many years in college parsing out nouns and verbs and participles and analyzing conditions in Greek.  I think grammar shapes what we write far more than the words. In the example given:

"It's just not needed!" Brian said, throwing his keyboard across the room.

versus

"It's just not needed!" Brian threw his keyboard across the room.

The difference is that Brian, in the first sentence, is explicitly speaking and throwing and the two verbs convey more action and does so simultaneously. The second sentence doesn't link the speaking and the actor and the action nearly as well.  There's dialog and then there's an action. They describe the same event but one does so more vividly. 

All opinion of course. But again, this is the best thread I've been privy too since joinin the forums. Kudos to Mythic Scribes.


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 19, 2013)

Xaysai said:


> Minor nitpick: "in frustration" is unnecessary because if you tell us he screams and throws the keyboard during a debate, we can assume he is frustrated.


Your nitpick kinda' avoided my point. My point was that I wanted the extra words...maybe he screams and throws the keyboard in order to squish a giant bug that invaded the debate?



Leif Notae said:


> The "reading like a reader" and "reading like a writer" is a cop out. There is no such thing. You cannot extract the writer out of a writer when he reads, much like you cannot implant a writer into a reader to get them to understand writing. It is our nature, and our resonance, to be what we are. We cannot hide ourselves in our "work space", as it were.
> 
> So, I think we all can agree that Brian is right about the poor quality of writing in certain spots (as is his right), and everyone else is right in their stance about not caring (as is their right).
> 
> ...


I disagree it's a cop out. As a writer/reader that is actively aware of the manner in which I consume my literature, they are different in a variety of ways. As a writer, specific words, sentence structure, flow and the like jumps out at me and when it's substandard (which actually is the standard, so maybe a different word is in order) I have a very difficult time overcoming my distaste. At the same time, certain turns of phrase that are quite clever do elicit a pleasure that I don't get to experience otherwise.

On the other hand, when I am able to immerse myself in a book and read as a non-writer reader, I don't pay attention to prose, I am reading for the story: the characters, the ideas, the setting and the plot. When I read as a non-writer, the book becomes a movie in my head.

You really think Sanderson is the worst modern writer? Or just the worst modern writer that people cite as being a good writer?


----------



## Caged Maiden (Jan 19, 2013)

I think that the more we focus on our own writing, the more we dwell on the same "mistakes" in others'.  

Someone once told me that the times he fought with his wife the worst, it was when she was acting exactly like him.  What do I mean in mentioning this?  If you're editing out all the adverbs in your own work, because you have the fundamental belief that they need to go, you will be that much pickier about finding them in someone else's work, because you've CONDITIONED your mind to pick them out.  It would be a lot less painful if you had your work edited by someone else and had them edit out all the adverbs.  Then your mind wouldn't be trained on seek and destroy.  

So the more you edit small details and tell yourself certain things need to be cut because (whatever reason)... then the more you will pick those things out and ruin your own enjoyment of other books.  

This is what "Reading like a writer" is, it's when you've trained your brain, and can't get it to go back again.  You have to work at it if you want to get it un-conditioned, but it's of course possible.  HA!  Try slamming your hand in a drawer every time you nit-pick something that doesn't matter.  It would probably be solved before the bruise got bad.  

I've purposely conditioned myself several times in my life, and now it's much easier to make a change in my thinking.  I know the process, and as difficult as it was to train my mind to automatically edit efficiently (about 8 months), I can now turn the ability on and off for different types of critiques (first draft, second draft, final edits), and I can SOMETIMES still enjoy books.  

I think one of the biggest drawbacks to being a writer, is that sometimes you can get into a style, and it becomes hard to accept anything outside your current comfort zone.  And lets face it, for some of us, the box is very small indeed.  For the very technical writers, a sentence based on flow and meter seems superfluous and ridiculous, an unedited sentence.  Whereas, for those of us who write for dramatic effect and try to breathe life into our work, the choppy short sentences and rigid guidelines for dialogue tags, adverbs, clipping and trimming every erroneous word... we feel like a German Shepherd on a two-foot chain.  Let us run a little!

So in closing, I think your nit-picking is something you've trained yourself to do, Brian.  I'm not arguing with your reasons for doing it, because I am familiar with your style.  If, however, you like your current range, and wouldn't change a thing, then you will probably feel a little dissatisfied with other people's work that doesn't mirror your own, because they will not be as limiting in their "allowances".  And I'm not advocating change, just pointing out why the items bothered you and how you can either stop it, or embrace it.  If, however, you would like to derive more enjoyment from reading, you will need to re-learn how to turn that conditioning off.  The hand-slamming might have sounded a joke, but I've used very similar techniques, punishing myself until a particular method of thinking went away.  It's surprisingly effective. IF every time I stare at a blank screen for an hour or get all wishy-washy rather than pulling the trigger, I go for a jog around the block, two things will happen.  I will get more fit in no time, and I will learn how to be more decisive, rather than jogging all the time.  I will learn how to iron out my problems (maybe even while jogging) and soon, I will just go for a jog when I need to think, or I will hate it so much, my mind will become more efficient at making decisions so I don't have to suffer the punishment.  

Okay, I know that sounds insane to someone who has never CONSCIOUSLY done it, but it's the exact same thing your mom was doing all those years: "Eat your vegetables, or no dessert."  "Homework first, then go out to play."   You have probably conditioned yourself to react in a certain way, maybe even a small punishment like frowning or chiding yourself when you see an "error", and you're feeling the punishment in other works, by your being pulled out of it and snapping to attention.  If you want to learn how to reverse that, just reapply the process to how you WANT to read.  Once you get good at several ways of thinking and reacting, you will be able to turn it on and off so you can be both EFFECTIVE EDITOR, and AVID READER.


----------



## Leif Notae (Jan 21, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> I disagree it's a cop out. As a writer/reader that is actively aware of the manner in which I consume my literature, they are different in a variety of ways. As a writer, specific words, sentence structure, flow and the like jumps out at me and when it's substandard (which actually is the standard, so maybe a different word is in order) I have a very difficult time overcoming my distaste. At the same time, certain turns of phrase that are quite clever do elicit a pleasure that I don't get to experience otherwise.
> 
> On the other hand, when I am able to immerse myself in a book and read as a non-writer reader, I don't pay attention to prose, I am reading for the story: the characters, the ideas, the setting and the plot. When I read as a non-writer, the book becomes a movie in my head.
> 
> You really think Sanderson is the worst modern writer? Or just the worst modern writer that people cite as being a good writer?



Oh, but it is a cop out. When you delve more into story arcs and understanding proper dialogue structure, story structure, showing more and telling less, and the faux triangle the audience plays and how often writers abuse it, you'll understand there's more to it than "being a reader". It is much like Pandora's Box. You release what is inside, you cannot get it back. 

Of course, maybe that means you haven't delved far enough to reach that magically insane point, who knows? I know I'm alongside Brian when I read things like Sanderson or even an independent best seller. They pick up bad habits because they don't know/don't understand, and then the readers prop up said bad habits because no one taught them how to read a certain way.

And yes, Sanderson is the worst. I understand he has a "huge" fanbase and they thirst for epic fantasy, but he cannot write a story to save his life. Every time I try to delve into his books, I can come up with a book twice as large with everything he needed to change to make it a more epic story instead of a fan fic about magic systems.


----------



## Penpilot (Jan 21, 2013)

Leif Notae said:


> And yes, Sanderson is the worst. I understand he has a "huge" fanbase and they thirst for epic fantasy, but he cannot write a story to save his life. Every time I try to delve into his books, I can come up with a book twice as large with everything he needed to change to make it a more epic story instead of a fan fic about magic systems.



I'm curious. Which books have you finished of his that have made you hate him so much? I'm not a Sanderson fan. I've read one of his books, Elantras, and it was OK. But I've read far worse from pro authors who have several series, so I find this a bit hyperbolic without specific examples of why.


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 21, 2013)

Leif Notae said:


> Oh, but it is a cop out. When you delve more into story arcs and understanding proper dialogue structure, story structure, showing more and telling less, and the faux triangle the audience plays and how often writers abuse it, you'll understand there's more to it than "being a reader". It is much like Pandora's Box. You release what is inside, you cannot get it back.
> 
> Of course, maybe that means you haven't delved far enough to reach that magically insane point, who knows? I know I'm alongside Brian when I read things like Sanderson or even an independent best seller. They pick up bad habits because they don't know/don't understand, and then the readers prop up said bad habits because no one taught them how to read a certain way.
> 
> And yes, Sanderson is the worst. I understand he has a "huge" fanbase and they thirst for epic fantasy, but he cannot write a story to save his life. Every time I try to delve into his books, I can come up with a book twice as large with everything he needed to change to make it a more epic story instead of a fan fic about magic systems.



Right, OK. *Exits the conversation*


----------



## Roc (Jan 21, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Overall, I think his writing is competent and have, for the most part, found his books enjoyable.  I can't help but feel that a professional writer shouldn't be doing stuff like this.
> 
> Am I being too harsh, here?  Are my expectations too high?  Is there a mitigating factor to what I perceive as errors?
> 
> ...



"Imuh pop a god daym cap evra time I read 'then' and unnecessary speech tags"...

Your rant made me laugh.

Everyone else has really said all that needs to be said, but good writing is objective. I, like the first poster, have the ability to ignore the word 'then' and not let it ruin my experience.

Just two years ago it was purple prose and now it's the word 'then'...these stigmas come and go, and besides...he's the professional writer...if professional and writing even go together.

I enjoyed your post, and have myself been irked by small things in stories, but you got to remember it's his style, and not all of us will like the Mona Lisa.


----------



## Leif Notae (Jan 21, 2013)

Penpilot said:


> I'm curious. Which books have you finished of his that have made you hate him so much? I'm not a Sanderson fan. I've read one of his books, Elantras, and it was OK. But I've read far worse from pro authors who have several series, so I find this a bit hyperbolic without specific examples of why.



I'd be happy to go over that with you in some other fashion in depth, but I've read more than a few (and giving each one a fair shake), but each one is worse than the last. Even a horrible author like Gail Martin is better than Sanderson, and that is saying a lot for me in my opinion.

EDIT: I figured I should give more of my observations on it. The magic system is the only basis he has for these stories, as is professed by the man himself. He crammed a story inside of a magical system, which is the wrong way to do it (in my book). Since he doesn't understand the concept of structure (protagonist must be easily identifiable, in at least the first 40% of the book, there must be a clear antagonist, there shouldn't be more than one POV within the first 30% of the book, etc), then he picked up these flaws and habits from reading without being aware of writing.

I still stand by the statement that made Zero scamper away. When you teach writers how to read like a writer (and read with a depth and understanding that pushes the limits of madness at times), then you can understand the layers that it takes to make a story and why writers like Sanderson are only perpetuating a myth that you can read stuff and word well.



Zero Angel said:


> Right, OK. *Exits the conversation*



Sorry you felt this way, have fun out there!


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 21, 2013)

Leif Notae said:


> The "reading like a reader" and "reading like a writer" is a cop out. There is no such thing. You cannot extract the writer out of a writer when he reads, much like you cannot implant a writer into a reader to get them to understand writing. It is our nature, and our resonance, to be what we are. We cannot hide ourselves in our "work space", as it were.



Eh, I don't see how it's a cop out to argue that if only a very small minority (us writers, natch) even notice these things, it should logically count as a very small issue.

I'm not saying we necessarily need to lower our standards to those of the average reader, just to recognize that the things we complain about may not be especially important other than strictly in a writing theory context. We don't all have to _like _the way Sanderson writes, but it's a bit unreasonable to demand he pay more attention to an issue that clearly isn't doing his career any noticable harm.



Penpilot said:


> I'm curious. Which books have you finished of his that have made you hate him so much? I'm not a Sanderson fan. I've read one of his books, Elantras, and it was OK. But I've read far worse from pro authors who have several series, so I find this a bit hyperbolic without specific examples of why.



I made it halfway through Elantris and I actually liked it pretty well, which for me is a bit surprising given the lack of violence and explosions.

I cannot honestly say I noticed any particularly devastating tendencies in Sanderson's writing - I'm sure he may have some flaws as an author but I don't tend to pay attention to that sort of thing when I read. But anyway, going as far as calling him the worst author of the modern would is clearly raving bear-punching lunacy. (No offense, Leif.)


----------



## Leif Notae (Jan 21, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Eh, I don't see how it's a cop out to argue that if only a very small minority (us writers, natch) even notice these things, it should logically count as a very small issue.
> 
> I'm not saying we necessarily need to lower our standards to those of the average reader, just to recognize that the things we complain about may not be especially important other than strictly in a writing theory context. We don't all have to _like _the way Sanderson writes, but it's a bit unreasonable to demand he pay more attention to an issue that clearly isn't doing his career any noticable harm.



I'll keep that in mind when I have a few people begging me to fund the movie for his trilogy since no one can adapt it.



Anders Ã„mting said:


> I made it halfway through Elantris and I actually liked it pretty well, which for me is a bit surprising given the lack of violence and explosions.
> 
> I cannot honestly say I noticed any particularly devastating tendencies in Sanderson's writing - I'm sure he may have some flaws as an author but I don't tend to pay attention to that sort of thing when I read. But anyway, going as far as calling him the worst author of the modern would is clearly raving bear-punching lunacy. (No offense, Leif.)



Again, I repeat the whole adaptation thing. If a screenwriter refuses to slog through it, that means more to me than most. 

GRRM is on the set every day tinkering with stories and how they lay out on TV. He has screenwriting experience.

Now do I deny he has his fans and some success? Nope, he has a contract and can do whatever he wishes. More power to him. If he wants to be a "cultural icon" and start bridging the worlds between fantasy and literature, he'll want to start creating stories. Real stories.

And I am a bearsark, so no bear punching for me, thank you.


----------



## Ankari (Jan 22, 2013)

Leif Notae said:


> EDIT: I figured I should give more of my observations on it. The magic system is the only basis he has for these stories, as is professed by the man himself. He crammed a story inside of a magical system, which is the wrong way to do it (in my book). Since he doesn't understand the concept of structure *(protagonist must be easily identifiable, in at least the first 40% of the book, there must be a clear antagonist, there shouldn't be more than one POV within the first 30% of the book, etc)*, then he picked up these flaws and habits from reading without being aware of writing.



I'm curious about these points.  I've never heard such a thing.  Can you provide more information?  Either in this thread or a separate one?


----------



## Ireth (Jan 22, 2013)

Leif Notae said:


> there shouldn't be more than one POV within the first 30% of the book



Why is that, I wonder? My WIP _Winter's Queen_ switches protagonists after the first five or six pages (three if you count the prologue from the villain's POV), and switches periodically back and forth between the hero and heroine for the remainder of the book, with one scene from the POV of the hero's brother. Would you say that's unadvisable? It certainly works for me.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 22, 2013)

Ireth said:


> Why is that, I wonder? My WIP _Winter's Queen_ switches protagonists after the first five or six pages (three if you count the prologue from the villain's POV), and switches periodically back and forth between the hero and heroine for the remainder of the book, with one scene from the POV of the hero's brother. Would you say that's unadvisable? It certainly works for me.



It's nonsense. Just to pick an example off my shelf, take Robert Crais' book Taken. Crais is also a former screenwriter (Emmy nomination for work on Hills Street Blues), has a bunch of NY Times Bestsellers, one movie made from a book, and I don't know how many literary awards, starting with his first novel.

Taken is a 414-page novel. First POV shift is at page 38. Shifts to POV 3 on page 66. Back to POV 1 on page 75. Back to POV 2 on page 105. And so on. Three or four additional POVs before the book is done. And it's a  very well-done book. When people start throwing around this kind of advice about how you "have" to adopt this structure or that, ignore it. It's a load of bollocks.


----------



## iWant iStrive (Jan 22, 2013)

Ireth said:


> Why is that, I wonder? My WIP _Winter's Queen_ switches protagonists after the first five or six pages (three if you count the prologue from the villain's POV), and switches periodically back and forth between the hero and heroine for the remainder of the book, with one scene from the POV of the hero's brother. Would you say that's unadvisable? It certainly works for me.



My opinion on this is that there is no problem with it as long as it's not confusing for the reader. And I can think of a couple of books that I've read where I got a bit lost when the author did this, as about 5 characters were introduced in the first chapter, then the second chapter suddenly its a completely different POV and loads of new characters. By the time the POV had switched back he was referring to the original characters again but I had lost track of who was who and in the end had to actually go back and read the first chapter again to not be totally lost.


----------



## JCFarnham (Jan 22, 2013)

I recently read a number of short stories in one day and the first part of Brian's Abuse of Power was in amongst them. 

In comparison to his story, some were written _terribly._ So while I generally come down on the side of art/stylism/blah like Steerpike et al.--and will probably always prefer a pleasing turn of "unnecessary" wordage over a dry report of the same thing--I don't like to argue with how Brian does things. The way I see it, his method produces some of the nicest prose I've seen recently. Nothing wrong with that if you count the results with your reader hat on. 

My problem with focusing new writers on micro-level editing is that some have absolutely no natural sense of macro issues (who goes where when, why, setting, generating intriguing, engaging ideas, etc.) In those cases I would rather they hold off on publishing a well written but dry story, until they have more experience with things like adding emotion and creating more or less fool proof reader involvement. However, doing it Brian's way or the other way... neither really matters. The results are what are important to me above all else.

So you see, it _can_ certainly help to have the techniques down and I've always admired Brian for that (once I figured out how his style worked), but to me, learning to craft an engrossing story is a different matter altogether. One that is far more important to hooking the average person.

I could plunk my partner in front of a Paolini/Meyer-type book and a dry but lean book, and she will prefer the books that, okay aren't written well, but feature ideas and characters and places that really stimulate the imagination. She'll agree with me when I say something feature poor technique, but she'll also get pissed off that I'm nitpicking  haha. 

I'm almost certain she's not the only person who does that, because those books wouldn't sell at quite the same volume otherwise. Paolini got significantly better as his cycle progressed, but I posit the setting and story hooked those loyal fans, not the style of prose. For me the Sookie Stackhouse novels are just the same, cringe worthy to my writer's brain in some places, but over all a stimulating read for most people in their target group.

There's always a problem when another writer is drafted in to finish someone else's story. I'm just surprised it took until the final WoT book for the differences to between Jordan and Sanderson to really jump out. 

[aside: I'm probably never going to be able to force myself through Jordan's writing to get to Sanderson's entries in the series. I'm just not a fan of longer epics. That's not a prose matter, though you could certainly misconstrue it as such. I prefer stories not to ramble. Leaner prose wouldn't have helped much, it would have made the books shorter for sure, but the length isn't the issue (point: I'm reading Game of Thrones), it's the way that at a MACRO-LEVEL not an awful lot can happen in 100 pages. Each to their own, right?]

Summary: You can have almost god-like technique, but if the story is boring, it's boring _whether or not_ its well written.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 22, 2013)

> I'm curious about these points. I've never heard such a thing. Can you provide more information? Either in this thread or a separate one?



Lief,

I agree with Ankari on this one.  I would honestly like to learn more about your thought process and why you think this to be true.

I don't necessarily agree with a lot of what you say, but that may be because I don't properly understand your reasoning.  I read a lot of your reviews on the Showcase and find your critiques spot on.  I take from that we probably have similar styles.

Anyway, I'd love to know more detail about exactly why you feel the way you do.

Thanks.

Brian


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 22, 2013)

> It's nonsense.





> When people start throwing around this kind of advice about how you "have" to adopt this structure or that, ignore it. It's a load of bollocks.



Truthfully, I'm inclined to agree with Steerpike on this particular point.

However, I've found Lief's advice on a lot of issues to be pretty solid.  Instead of saying, "I don't like the way he stated his opinion," I'd prefer to have him give us more information on why he feels that way.  Maybe, probably, I'll get something out of the resulting discussion.  I just hope that comments like those above don't discourage him from sharing more about it.

He has a very unique perspective and strongly held opinions.  I do, too.  Though he's unlikely to fully convert me to agree with him on everything, I feel it likely I'll gain something that will make my writing better out of the process.  

Lief seems to think that screenwriting is the stuff when it comes to figuring out how to write.  I know nothing about screenwriting and would like to learn more about his thoughts on it.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 22, 2013)

> don't like to argue with how Brian does things. The way I see it, his method produces some of the nicest prose I've seen recently. Nothing wrong with that if you count the results with your reader hat on.



Wow!  That's an awesome compliment.  Thank you so much.  I'll warn you, though - If you make my head any bigger, you're going to make my wife mad.



> The results are what are important to me above all else.



True dat.

Writing is such a difficult process, and learning it is not straightforward at all.  I tend to like to break a subject down to its essentials and start understanding it from there.  I think that, what I've primarily discovered about writing is:

To hold your reader's attention, you need a relatable character experiencing an emotional response to a tense situation.

Truthfully, style and wording is far below creating those three elements as far as priorities go.  For me to get to the point where I understood this, I had to go through a long learning curve.  For me, that process started with the nitty gritty technical aspects - wording, grammar, all that stuff.  

The process made me a much better technician, but that alone is pretty worthless had I not learned the lesson above.  Hopefully, knowing what a story needs to engage a reader combined with the technical ability to convey it will make my writing successful.  (Assuming, of course, that you measure success based on the ability to engage a reader, which, of course, may not be every writer's goal.)

EDIT: I think I may have lost my point in there somewhere.  In actual response to your comment - Regardless of the path you use to get there, to be a truly good writer, I think you have to learn both storytelling and technical skill.  I also think that the choices your make in your writing style are probably less important than the fact that you make actual choices, as in you know what you're doing and make an informed decision about the words you use.  That's why stuff like that which started this rant bother me.  In the context of the style and flow of the book, I could find no discernable reason for what I saw as obvious errors, and this from a "professional" writer in a mainstream book that presumably a "professional" editor saw at some point.


----------



## Xaysai (Jan 22, 2013)

The only advice a new writer needs to learn came from the movie Better Off Dead:


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 22, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I just hope that comments like those above don't discourage him from sharing more about it.



I doubt it. Leif's been around a while and I don't get the impression he has to be coddled. I like reading his posts.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 22, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> That's why stuff like that which started this rant bother me.  In the context of the style and flow of the book, I could find no discernable reason for what I saw as obvious errors, and this from a "professional" writer in a mainstream book that presumably a "professional" editor saw at some point.



Just think about the time frame in which you complete a novel, and then compare that to deadlines someone like Sanderson or other successful writers are up against for producing enough output to keep their publisher and fans happy. I suspect that's why they don't sweat this sort of stuff, particularly since your average reader isn't like to care about it.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 22, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I doubt it. Leif's been around a while and I don't get the impression he has to be coddled. I like reading his posts.



Truthfully, and I know this is probably hard to believe, I have shied away from making some posts that I thought might have been helpful because I didn't feel like dealing with the reaction I knew some would have to them.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 22, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Just think about the time frame in which you complete a novel, and then compare that to deadlines someone like Sanderson or other successful writers are up against for producing enough output to keep their publisher and fans happy. I suspect that's why they don't sweat this sort of stuff, particularly since your average reader isn't like to care about it.



I do get deadline versus quality.  Perhaps that is it.  I can already foresee that becoming a bit of an issue for me.  It is so hard for me to send something out there if I see flaws in it, no matter how minor.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 22, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Truthfully, and I know this is probably hard to believe, I have shied away from making some posts that I thought might have been helpful because I didn't feel like dealing with the reaction I knew some would have to them.



I just operate under the assumption that on a board with this many members, there is going to be more than one person who disagrees with me, no matter what I say. I prefer it to the alternative.

If you have a post you want to make but don't want to get into a drawn out discussion trying to defend it, I'd say just make the post and move on. There's no reason you have to engage the people with contrary opinions. I've done that a few times, for example, when I don't have the time to get into a debate. Just make the post you want to make and let it stand on its own. In most cases, it will spark an interesting discussion among other members of the board, regardless.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 22, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I do get deadline versus quality.  Perhaps that is it.  I can already foresee that becoming a bit of an issue for me.  It is so hard for me to send something out there if I see flaws in it, no matter how minor.



That's the good thing about self-publishing, if you go that route. Ultimately, you decide whether you have deadlines, and you decide whether something is ready to go. 

For some agreements I've dealt with where there are publishers and other parties involved, there has been a date stated as a deadline, and if the author missed it there were damages. In one situation last year, the deadline was three months out and the author hadn't even started the work yet. I don't know how common that sort of thing is. I think it would drive some people nuts, though this client told me he thrived with that kind of timeline so it worked for him.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 22, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> That's the good thing about self-publishing, if you go that route. Ultimately, you decide whether you have deadlines, and you decide whether something is ready to go.
> 
> For some agreements I've dealt with where there are publishers and other parties involved, there has been a date stated as a deadline, and if the author missed it there were damages. In one situation last year, the deadline was three months out and the author hadn't even started the work yet. I don't know how common that sort of thing is. I think it would drive some people nuts, though this client told me he thrived with that kind of timeline so it worked for him.



Hard deadlines help me as well.  I always waited to do my homework until the morning it was due.  I found I worked much more efficiently that way.

Still, self publishing does relieve a lot of the stress.  We'll see how I deal with that type of thing when/if I get into that situation.


----------



## Leif Notae (Jan 22, 2013)

Nah, don't worry about me. This is all based in the madness that is my mind, though I can say it has been effective for a while in getting things published (even in small time journals) and getting the proper story written in the right way. 

Right, onto the show. The request was made, so I will clarify. If you want me to make a new thread with this on it, I'm game.

_protagonist must be easily identifiable_ - No brainer here, though I can understand the hip point of being a multi-faceted good guy scenario where there is a rag-tag team of good guys taking on the world. Let me give you this as an example (borrowing this bit from another post off boards):

The Lord of the Rings had many heroes and many POV's. Analysis can even point to a shifting good guy scenario where it wasn't really about Frodo, it was about the good of humanity and the king returning. Bollocks. Frodo got the ring and was charged to take it back. That's the story. Everything else is a flavorful distraction. Yes, you want to do this in an "epic" world, but it still boils down to fur footed man climbs a mountain and loses a ring.

_(protagonist) in at least the first 40% of the book_ - Again, another no brainer here, though it is a little more clandestine than most. When you start off with one character and keep shifting to others, you might build up a broader character base, but you will allow your readers to miss out on the power of your protagonist. If you think of it in movie terms (sorry, I know you all hate it when I do this), the constant jump cuts in a movie usually circle around someone who is either IN the protagonists view or JUST finished talking to them. This helps the viewer identify who the main person is. You don't want to lose your reader/viewer.

_There must be a clear antagonist_ - Again, a no brainer, but there is confusion here as well. An antagonist doesn't have to be the villain, but the villain can certainly be the antagonist. This is why I harp on prologues all the time when they don't intro an antagonist. This is the curtain call, a stamp of "this bad man is a bad ass and he will bad all over your goodness." The clear threat to normalcy is what draws your reader in and keeps them there. They know the stakes and they see it, like a dirty voyeur, and keep glued to the story because they must know what happens next. Did the hero get the item to save the world? Did he overcome the traps set out by the antagonist?

_There shouldn't be more than one POV within the first 30% of the book_ - Applies to statement number two, in which you are going to lose people in the mix of views. I just "finished" reading The Broken, in which she had one POV for over 40% of the book. I knew her protagonist was the MC, and there wasn't going to be an issue with losing my way. I reference The Way of Kings as the opposite end of the spectrum. There are four entries before we are "really" introduced to the protagonist (this is why I say they are four prologues). One is the 50k years ago with the overall powerful swordwielders, the next is 5k years ago with the magical assassin, the third is the point of view from the recruited boy who sees the "real" protagonist, and then the fourth is the protagonist.

My mind identified the 50k version as the villains. Cool. My mind identified the assassin mage as the hero. Okay, good anti-hero bit is cool. Then when the child came in, I had to throw that out and wonder why he wasted his time building up this assassin mage in the first place if he wasn't going to make him the hero. Right. Child sees a battle, survives, grows to hate the villains, makes it happen. AND THEN the POV switches to the REAL protagonist, in which I wanted to burn the book and pray for the evil demons to leave my head.

*THIS* is why I say you can never stop reading as a writer once you reach a certain point. Whether or not you think the overall story is bad, the presentation prevents further progress. The point is to get your reader so lost in your world that they become a part of it. It isn't to be a spasmodic cat twitching after the latest hit of catnip.

I'll see if I can find the info on the "false triangle of the reader" vs. the "broken T of the reader" paradigm you want to maintain in your writing. Hope this helps and forgive me if I upset any of you with my madness.


----------



## Penpilot (Jan 22, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I know nothing about screenwriting and would like to learn more about his thoughts on it.



If you're inclined to learning a bit more about screenwriting, I've read two books that have helped me a lot in terms of structure. One's called Save the Cat, and the other is called My Story Can Beat Up Your Story. Both contain really good structural tips as well as different ways in which to think about story and the characters in them.


----------



## Leif Notae (Jan 22, 2013)

Penpilot said:


> If you're inclined to learning a bit more about screenwriting, I've read two books that have helped me a lot in terms of structure. One's called Save the Cat, and the other is called My Story Can Beat Up Your Story. Both contain really good structural tips as well as different ways in which to think about story and the characters in them.



Also, anything with Syd Field helps too, if only to get some of the story structure stuff down. All these are great choices though.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 22, 2013)

> protagonist must be easily identifiable



I definitely agree with this.  Give me the character as quickly as possible!  

Another of my pet peeves, I've been subjected to several stories lately where the author won't provide me with the name of the POV character for a few pages.  Annoys the crap out of me.



> (protagonist) in at least the first 40% of the book



This sounds like a really good rule of thumb, and I love rules of thumb.  If the story is about someone, that person should be prominent in your story.



> There must be a clear antagonist



I'd modify this to say that there should be clear opposition.  A protagonist need not fight against a person.  The opposition can be himself or nature (I think there were some others aas well).  I get your point though.  There is no story without opposition.



> There shouldn't be more than one POV within the first 30% of the book



I'm still not buying this one.

I think it makes a lot of sense to say, "Don't confuse your reader with who the story is about."  On the other hand (and I'm feeling like Steerpike here), I don't think this applies to every story.

Lief, how do you feel about epic fantasy in general?  It seems to me that it takes more than one character to carry it.  Take WoT for example, It started focused on Xan (and expanded to cover way too many POV characters) but Mat and Perrin were legitimate protagonists and made the story better.  If you are doing an epic fantasy, do you disagree that you need, or that it at least does no harm to have, multiple protagonists.  And, in that case, doesn't it make sense to emphasize the importance of these secondary protagonists early by giving them a POV scene?

EDIT: Or, what about a romance?  You can properly tell the story from both points of view, and I've read some decent Jodi Picoult books that alternate viewpoints between the two protagonists.


----------



## Gurkhal (Jan 22, 2013)

I kind of disagrees with what Leif Notae said. To me there don't have to be a clear protagonist nor clear antagonist. Just give me the characters without forcing down and opinion down my throat and I can sort out for myself who I think is the better or worse person. 

I like it grey and the more grey the better (also don't confuse grey with pitch-black...) and with no clear or pre-definied pro- or antagonist.


----------



## Leif Notae (Jan 22, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I'm still not buying this one.
> 
> I think it makes a lot of sense to say, "Don't confuse your reader with who the story is about."  On the other hand (and I'm feeling like Steerpike here), I don't think this applies to every story.
> 
> ...



See, what you are wanting to find here is a reason why there cannot be more than one POV in the beginning of a story. The situation here is that in the end, you have one story being carried out by a protagonist. The CORE of any setting (romance, epic fantasy, sci-fi swamp-gas probing pulp, whatever) is that there is ONE supporting story carrying around the other POV's. You must build this up and nurture it. 

Yes, you can have other POV's before the 30%, but it is best saved for when the readers know these players better. If you have a sequel, you can do this to your hearts content since the readers will understand what is going on. It's the same with prologues (save the 60-10,000 page versions) of sequels since they only recap what happened in the previous book.

Try it out yourself. Look at these "epics" and see there is a well framed single "load carrying" story propelling everything. It only loses strength when you fracture it.



Gurkhal said:


> I kind of disagrees with what Leif Notae said. To me there don't have to be a clear protagonist nor clear antagonist. Just give me the characters without forcing down and opinion down my throat and I can sort out for myself who I think is the better or worse person.
> 
> I like it grey and the more grey the better (also don't confuse grey with pitch-black...) and with no clear or pre-definied pro- or antagonist.



Yet you still have someone to root for, and you still have someone to root against. You are using clear cut colors to put distance between you and the standard story. That's cool, more power to you. However, even the anti-hero or the popular villains are, in the end, still protagonist and antagonists.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 22, 2013)

Gurkhal said:


> I kind of disagrees with what Leif Notae said. To me there don't have to be a clear protagonist nor clear antagonist. Just give me the characters without forcing down and opinion down my throat and I can sort out for myself who I think is the better or worse person.
> 
> I like it grey and the more grey the better (also don't confuse grey with pitch-black...) and with no clear or pre-definied pro- or antagonist.



Gurkhal,

You may be confusing protagonist and antagonist with "good" and "evil."  I think Lief is more referring to the protagonist as the character on whom the story is focused and the antagonist the opposition to that character.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 22, 2013)

> See, what you are wanting to find here is a reason why there cannot be more than one POV in the beginning of a story.



Not as much as just trying to poke holes in a theory to see if it stands up to the test.  How else can you know if something is true if you don't try to prove it false?

I don't disagree that there is a single core story, so I guess what we're arguing is the importance of the secondary characters.  I'm kinda thinking of it like you reacted to finding out a POV character in the example you gave above wasn't the actual protagonist.  You felt like the writer "tricked" you.

Giving a character a POV scene emphasizes their importance to the reader.  If I have a character who is going to play a major role, I think it's important to establish that importance early so as not to "trick" the reader.

I think this is best achieved by devoting the first several chapters to the protagonist and then throwing in a scene here or there for the secondary characters POV.


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 22, 2013)

Leif Notae said:


> I still stand by the statement that made Zero scamper away. When you teach writers how to read like a writer (and read with a depth and understanding that pushes the limits of madness at times), then you can understand the layers that it takes to make a story and why writers like Sanderson are only perpetuating a myth that you can read stuff and word well.



To clarify what has made me "scamper away" without hopefully engaging the topic again. I stop discussing with people when subjective truths are presented as absolutes. Even BWFoster78 above, when agreeing with one of your absolutes called it a "rule of thumb". Maybe it's a semantics issue and Leif doesn't think of these things as absolute truths, but I don't enjoy discussions when this happens. 

For clarity, I would have agreed with the statement, "When you teach writers how to read like a writer ... then you can understand the layers that it takes to make a story," so that definitely did not make me "scamper away".


----------



## Leif Notae (Jan 22, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> To clarify what has made me "scamper away" without hopefully engaging the topic again. I stop discussing with people when subjective truths are presented as absolutes. Even BWFoster78 above, when agreeing with one of your absolutes called it a "rule of thumb". Maybe it's a semantics issue and Leif doesn't think of these things as absolute truths, but I don't enjoy discussions when this happens.
> 
> For clarity, I would have agreed with the statement, "When you teach writers how to read like a writer ... then you can understand the layers that it takes to make a story," so that definitely did not make me "scamper away".



But they are absolute truths if you desire to be a writer. There is some wiggle room here and there, sure. The rules don't always apply when you have 10 novels under your belt and you can tell the publisher to suck eggs. However, that comes with experience and privilege. There are certain ways a story is told. To do otherwise only undermines what you are trying to say.


----------



## Leif Notae (Jan 22, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Not as much as just trying to poke holes in a theory to see if it stands up to the test.  How else can you know if something is true if you don't try to prove it false?
> 
> I don't disagree that there is a single core story, so I guess what we're arguing is the importance of the secondary characters.  I'm kinda thinking of it like you reacted to finding out a POV character in the example you gave above wasn't the actual protagonist.  You felt like the writer "tricked" you.
> 
> ...



No worries, I understand what you are trying to do. I also hear some other people out there who are screaming at their monitors right now. Just want to make sure I cover everyone (including the voices in my head).


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 22, 2013)

Leif Notae said:


> But they are absolute truths if you desire to be a writer.



They're self-evidently not absolute truths, since people have been citing examples of those who have realized their desire to be a writer and who don't follow your rules. 

The idea that there is only one way to tell a story is harmful to writers and to writing generally. Also, some of the rules you set forth seem to rely on the idea that the reader is too stupid to get along unless the writer spoon-feeds them by adhering to some generic formula. If you want to write for the benefit of stupid people, you're welcome to do so. I do not


----------



## Xaysai (Jan 22, 2013)

Only Sith's deal in absolutes.

Introducing: Darth Notae.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jan 22, 2013)

Xaysai said:


> Only Sith's deal in absolutes.
> 
> Introducing: Darth Notae.



Ha!

That actually made me LOL!


----------



## Leif Notae (Jan 22, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> They're self-evidently not absolute truths, since people have been citing examples of those who have realized their desire to be a writer and who don't follow your rules.
> 
> The idea that there is only one way to tell a story is harmful to writers and to writing generally. Also, some of the rules you set forth seem to rely on the idea that the reader is too stupid to get along unless the writer spoon-feeds them by adhering to some generic formula. If you want to write for the benefit of stupid people, you're welcome to do so. I do not



We agree there is an absolute truth on the way a story is told, yes? Acts divided by the key plot points in which each scene advances a plot, correct? And those scene that do not have a resolution are indeed only scenes until finished? Of course.

My way is not writing for "stupid people", and in fact I submit to you those writers who avoid these truths are indeed afraid their readers are not intelligent enough to follow along. Instead of having faith and trust their readers will fill in the silence with tone and fill in the blanks with visuals, these writers delve into over explaining or even a "unique" stance because "they won't get it without my (the writer's) help."

These absolute truths rely on the intelligence and imagination of readers. They are tried and true sine the beginning of storytelling. It is the fear of obscurity or the desire to stand out that is the fear acting upon itself and destroying a writer from within (as it is with all fear).


----------



## Leif Notae (Jan 22, 2013)

Xaysai said:


> Only Sith's deal in absolutes.
> 
> Introducing: Darth Notae.



Why do you think I have the monocle?


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 22, 2013)

Hold up, hold up. I realize I'm kinda late to this party, but I have to challenge Leif's position. Because why not.

Leith, you have a deadly habit of categorically stating your opinion as absolute truth, without giving due justification for why we should accept your authority. While your observations about writing are useful, they aren't absolutes, especially the one about POV shifts, as it has been pointed out multiple times here that successful writers have broken your rules and have not suffered for it.

Furthermore, I challenge your assertion that there is a "wrong" way to read and the "right" way to read, of which the masses are woefully ignorant. This is quite possibly one of the most elitist things I've ever heard on the internet. Usually, I'm all for black-and-white. But in this case, such a simplistic division fails to take into account the large range of styles and preferences exhibited in any arbitrary cross-section of humanity, writers and readers alike. Who is the ultimate arbiter of what styles and preferences are wrong and which are right? You? Grammar and linguistic technicalities, we can argue, but art is a bit harder to pin down. And while I'm no proponent of cultural relativism, you have not only ignored personal variance in your schema, but cultural variance as well. Different cultures will have different modes and traditions of storytelling. I don't know if all of them conform to the screenwriter's three-act structure, but I do know they don't _have_ to.

But my main point of contention is your statement about Sanderson. Steerpike's criticism I find... insufficient. It is not mere bear-punching lunacy. I think tiger-kicking, shark-tickling, alligator-humping lunacy is more accurate. Your statement about Sanderson has not been (and, I think, cannot be) substantiated with evidence. What _makes_ Sanderson the worst? Who have you compared him to? Did you survey the works of every single writer on the planet? _Have you heard of a man named *text redacted* He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named?_


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 22, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> _Have you heard of a man named *removed*?_



I thought we were referring to him as he-who-must-not-be-named to avoid showing up in Google searches done by him?

Edit: Caught in time to remove!


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 22, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> I thought we were referring to him as he-who-must-not-be-named to avoid showing up in Google searches done by him?



Oh. Damn. I'll fix that.

Even if I fixed it, it's still in your quote. So let's hope he doesn't notice. Or we could _both_ edit our posts.


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 22, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Oh. Damn. I'll fix that.
> 
> Even if I fixed it, it's still in your quote. So let's hope he doesn't notice. Or we could _both_ edit our posts.



Edited in time! I forgot about your quote in my post. That would have just increased the Google relevancy and that's something none of us want...You can leave it in or not, but I find it a great demonstration of just how *left unsaid* that author is that we rushed to edit our posts. Hopefully, as long as the thread isn't derailed into bashing him there will be no retaliatory actions.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 22, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> Edited in time! I forgot about your quote in my post. That would have just increased the Google relevancy and that's something none of us want...You can leave it in or not, but I find it a great demonstration of just how *left unsaid* that author is that we rushed to edit our posts. Hopefully, as long as the thread isn't derailed into bashing him there will be no retaliatory actions.



Indeed. Edited mine too.


----------



## Leif Notae (Jan 23, 2013)

(cut by moderators)

Elantris - Three points of view that should be one, in which the split of the POV's are an actual detriment to the story itself. The Prince is the main POV, but the princess and the priest are so lacking in their one dimensional act that they drag the carcass down because they serve no purpose because they are worthless.

That strange color magic novel that should not exist - Worthless. Couldn't make it past the prologue because it is, indeed, worthless. There is no value to it, thus there is no need to continue past it. I even went to the extent of reading PAST it and found lack because each character in the "first chapter" is equally as worthless since they are as one dimensional in their desires and reasons for existence.

Copy and paste for his trilogy.

Copy and paste for his Way of Kings (cut by moderators).

I don't count Wheel of Time because a dead man tapped him to finish his work. HOWEVER, a 60 page prologue might make you happy, it makes the serious writer ill.

(cut by moderators)

Note from moderators: please keep insults out of rational discussion.


----------



## Leif Notae (Jan 23, 2013)

And, I might add, it is only through a weak and soft mind that you would demand a comparison and contrast instead of accepting the stand alone analysis of a writer's work. I don't HAVE to compare it to anything because I use logical story study and history of story structure to make my hypothesis. It is what it is.

It is your chance to refute me with real LOGIC and ANALYSIS. 

Good luck, ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 23, 2013)

Your response is petty, unnecessarily vicious, and ultimately laughable. I'll be back to ransack it when my engineering classes end.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 23, 2013)

I don't think we mind some good-natured ribbing, but when you're in a community of writers keep in mind that it is inevitable that you're going to find people that disagree with you on certain issues. If you are personally unable to handle disagreement with your viewpoints, regardless of which side of the issue you support, then it may not be a bad idea to take a break.


----------



## Chilari (Jan 23, 2013)

Leif, I object to your scorn of finger painting. I finger paint. I use acrylics and proper canvases and everything, and if I do say so myself it doesn't come out all that bad. It's easier than brushes but requires different techniques - detail requires careful planning and lots of layers for example.


----------



## Telcontar (Jan 23, 2013)

Preference of authors does not fall to objective logic. That is all.  

I wish to move onto the more pressing matter - what is this 'he-who-shall-not-be-named' business? Who are we talking about? Would somebody PM me? I feel so out of touch...


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 23, 2013)

Telcontar said:


> Preference of authors does not fall to objective logic. That is all.
> 
> I wish to move onto the more pressing matter - what is this 'he-who-shall-not-be-named' business? Who are we talking about? Would somebody PM me? I feel so out of touch...



PM'ed. Now you can be filled with revulsion as well.


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 23, 2013)

-sigh- ...reenters conversation.
(Edited to address post-moderated form of posts)

I disagree with ALL of the opinions expressed on Sanderson's novels apparently. But what really concerns me is that they are not seen as opinions. 



Leif Notae said:


> It is your chance to refute me with real LOGIC and ANALYSIS.
> 
> Good luck, ladies and gentlemen.


Here is my summary of your argument: I dislike strawberries because they are red. You cannot deny that they are red, hence anyone that is not a moron should dislike strawberries. 

The problem here is the connection that being red implies that we should dislike them. This is a mind projection fallacy. You cannot assume that your personal experience is the way the world really is. Because you think strawberries are bad does not mean that they are inherently bad. Also, assuming that everyone that is similar to you is good and everyone else is an idiot or moron or whatever language you are using is also another fallacy.

You can say something true all you want, that does not mean that it implies what you are saying it implies. You can say that books with long prologues are bad, that doesn't make a book with a long prologue bad, it means that if a book has a long prologue then you will think it is bad. You can say that books with multiple viewpoints early are bad, that doesn't make them bad, it means that you think they are bad. You can even say that you have some authority on writing (appeal to authority), but that is a logical fallacy as well. Having an authority does not make something true, it means that someone thinks it is true.

The correct way to use modus ponens is to say, "if p implies q and we assume p to be true, then q must be the case." No one is questioning that you believe p implies q or even that p is true. We are saying that p does not imply q.

I believe that books can be good regardless of prologue length or inclusion, whether that prologue contains an antagonist, protagonist or even a main character, whether there are multiple POV shifts before an arbitrary point or not, whether books are written to include the reader or exclude the reader. I am denying that including these no matter how well they are done forces a book to be bad because the word "bad" is subjective and appears to be a matter of taste.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Jan 23, 2013)

*Special Warning:* Any person that continues the fight will receive an Infraction.


----------



## FatCat (Jan 23, 2013)

Just give me the freaking infraction!- Fatgale Nightincat


----------



## danr62 (Jan 23, 2013)

I'd also like a PM about he-who-must-not-be-named.


----------



## Xaysai (Jan 23, 2013)

danr62 said:


> I'd also like a PM about he-who-must-not-be-named.



I thought they were joking.

Is there really someone were not supposed to talk about? Other than Voldemort?

OH GOD I NAMED HIM!


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jan 23, 2013)

Yes... There is!

<cue diabolical music>

Muhuahahahah!


----------



## Telcontar (Jan 24, 2013)

Dan and Xay - I've PM'ed you both, repeating Zero Angel's response to me.


----------



## Devor (Jan 25, 2013)

Xaysai said:


> I thought they were joking.
> 
> Is there really someone were not supposed to talk about? Other than Voldemort?
> 
> OH GOD I NAMED HIM!



Nonsense.  They're just talking about _Removed by Moderator_.


----------

