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

[Xaysai]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

"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]

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.

Right, OK. *Exits the conversation*

Sorry you felt this way, have fun out there!

 

[Anders Ämting]

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.

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.)