Do successful authors bother with good technique?

[Incanus]

Recently, I decided to read a popular regular fiction book (a ‘thriller’, I believe), albeit an older one from the 90’s, for a change of pace and perspective. This book was made into a very good movie, and many of the author’s other books have been made into movies as well. I’m sure most members here have at least heard of this author. (I will identify the book/author in a later post.)

The story is generally good, but the execution has me scratching my head. First of all, ‘telling’ Is by far the preferred technique as most of the narration is done this way. ‘Showing’ is used pretty much only with dialogue. Many scenes throughout are summarized or told.

The main character is little more than a few main details: age, gender, career, one or two physical details. Virtually no backstory. The personality is limited to the occasional wise-crack. Surprisingly paper-thin, and that’s the main character.

The POV is omniscient, third-person. About halfway down page two, a character is introduced (for lack of a better term) through direct exposition from the author to the reader. It is not in a scene, so there is no ‘showing’. It is a non-sequitur, having nothing to do with what came just before. It is essentially a list of factual information that segues into the character’s ‘appearance’.

Still, the story itself is rather good for the most part.

The editors/publishers surely saw all these issues. I’m wondering why they didn’t bother addressing them. I have a guess, but I’ll withhold that for now.

Question: how often have you seen this sort of thing before: A popular book utilizing poor technique?

 

[Devor]

It actually happens all the time. One of the Tiktokers I follow says that it's survivors bias. You see the handful of published authors who know how to get away with it, and you don't see the thousands who can't.

There's also another side to it. You've been reading the writing advice that says don't do these things, and you've taught yourself to look for them. You're no longer an unbiased reader just out to enjoy a book. While I can't speak for this particular mystery book in question, most readers don't care and probably even enjoy the writing style. You've been advised not to do certain things, and not on how to do them well. Are there ways in which this writer is getting these techniques to work that others don't?

But even if the advice not to do these things were spot on 100%, they're only a tiny part of what a novel actually is. If you were to give it a grade, maybe it gets 7/20 for technique, but 80/80 for everything else, still giving you a pretty good read.

Finally, you said the book was from the 90s? Things change. The market's tighter and books are less profitable than ever before. There’s less room for leniency. And from an author we've all heard of? Then they've built up the good will to take risks and get away with them, or even have the momentum to stick their familiar writing style that was built up before the market changed.

By the way, was it King?

 

[pmmg]

Question: how often have you seen this sort of thing before: A popular book utilizing poor technique?

Often and it happens. But...

I still want my books to meet what I consider a professional standard.

I want you to have a professional standard as well.

 

[Karlin]

some of this is definitely a matter of fashion. If you read some of the Chinese classics (yes, there I go again), you will see each each character introduced in a quick 2 line list of how he appears. He was fat, face red as a date, and a long Beard. His weapon was a lance."

 

[pmmg]

some of this is definitely a matter of fashion. If you read some of the Chinese classics (yes, there I go again), you will see each each character introduced in a quick 2 line list of how he appears. He was fat, face red as a date, and a long Beard. His weapon was a lance."

And I try so hard to introduce details without it seeming ham-fisted.

Back to the OP and the subject...

Some of the most successful authors have very bad grammar. R.L Stine, who at least at one point, had the most top selling book, only ever used a period. He never used another punctuation mark. Course his audience was very young.

And, if you want something to frost you, remember Paris Hilton is a best selling author.

What can you do? I cannot measure my success by what they do. I just measure it against myself. I hope to have some pretty hot best selling books. I hope readers come to like them because of the quality. And I hope they fire off on all cylinders...craft, plot, character, meaning, world building...all of it. That's the standard I hold for myself. Its one I hope many of you also have.

 

[SamazonE]

Throw the book at them. Showing not telling is a metre of justice anyway. You may as well complain about silver and gold being inside coins. I mean, what is the point, an object is only an object.

I have read many books that I just didn’t get, I suppose that is why there are all these rules. The purpose of a book is to show not tell, and is worth its weight in gold and silver, however there is a better way to understand all this, and that is by going at it critically.

When there is any incomplete justice for a thing, it is worth complaining about it. I have spent many words wrong in the beginning of an endeavour, and I only get so much out of it. It is worth it to buy a pet, and rug up, and play a computer game instead.

Where we get our inspiration is the difficult part. We all remember facts about the things we are interested in, I just happen to remember most of the books I have read, and that is only the beginning.

 

[Prince of Spires]

One thing that's important here is to understand the intent of the author and the purpose of the advice, combined with the interests of the reader.

Showing let's us feel emotionally connected to the main character and the story.

A character's personality is a way to, again, connect to the main character. If you have a character focussed story, then the reader is there for the character's personality. For the journey the character has.

POV is just a tool and a fashion trend. 3rd limited is a way to get deeper into a character's head. 1st person is even deeper. However, you also sacrifice the broader scope of the story. You can't just quickly tell us what a different character is thinking, or spend 2 pages describing trees.

Now to apply all this to the story at hand. Thrillers can be different in the sense that people read them not for the character journey, but for the character just doing epic things while there are explosions all around. It's about the puzzles they face along the way and the ticking timebomb. In that sense, you don't need to get us deeply invested in the character, and that might actually work against you as an author.

As an example, when you're reading (or watching) James Bond (the older ones, not the Daniel Craig ones), then you're there to see James Bond do awesome things. You're there to see him use fun gadgets and have all women be interested in him for no reason at all and to have him win whatever casino game he happens to be playing. You don't want to read about how he's feeling insecure when he walks into that room and see him wrestle with the guilt of having shot 4 people or whatever. That can be a good story, but it's not what a spy thriller like James Bond is about.

Thrillers also tend to have break-neck paces. Where Epic Fantasy easily runs over 100k words, with a thriller you definitely want to stay below that. A reader should be able to finish it in one or two sittings, and they should be dragged through the story to leave them breathless. And that leads to word-economy. Showing is great, however it also takes a lot more words and slows down the pace. Showing me how the moonlight of the full moon glints of the broken glass is great and all. However when you have a truck explode, the characters couldn't care less and you'd just tell me the moon was full.

So there's a big chance that the author is actually using great technique for what he is writing. He might be very intentional about what he does and how he achieves his desired outcome. It's just that that outcome is very different than what other genres might demand.

 

[Penpilot]

Generally speaking, there's a technique aspect to writing and there's the storyteller side. And what appeals to the reader is the right mix of those two things for the story the author wants to tell. I don't think anyone is a perfect 10 out of 10 at either. They just have to be good enough at each, so the piece as a whole can stand up.

A piece may be 6/10 at technique and a 5/10 at story telling, so 11/20 might make it passable, but unremarkable. Or if it's a 6/10 and a 9/10, combined, it ends up being pretty good overall, where the storytelling makes up for some of the flaws in technique. But if someone is a perfect 10 in technique, but a 0 in storytelling, that's not going to work. Same if it was the opposite. A perfect 10 storyteller, with 0 for technique, probably won't cut the mustard.

In addition, as Devor mentioned, you know how the sausage is made. You're much more attuned to the subtleties of the ingredients and preparation process. Most people don't care about how it's made, they just care if it taste good or good enough.

 

[Incanus]

Yes, I bet 'survivor's bias' was in play here. That has to be a thing.

Some good points made in this thread. Again, I think the story is generally good, but would have been better if it employed stronger techniques.

Anyway, the book was The Firm by John Grisham.

I now know of two examples where the movie is better than the book. The other being The Shining by Stephen King.

 

[skip.knox]

Question: how often have you seen this sort of thing before: A popular book utilizing poor technique?

You're presuming it's poor technique. It's not poor if it works. Did you enjoy the book? Presumably many others have.

It's also possible that different genres have different conventions and reader expectations, and that this author was giving the readers exactly what they wanted.

 

[pmmg]

Well...I think there is room for technique to be poor and it still to be working.

 

[Insolent Lad]

Yes, I bet 'survivor's bias' was in play here. That has to be a thing.

Some good points made in this thread. Again, I think the story is generally good, but would have been better if it employed stronger techniques.

Anyway, the book was The Firm by John Grisham.

I now know of two examples where the movie is better than the book. The other being The Shining by Stephen King.

I would add The Godfather to that list. What a slog the novel was.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Just about all of the authors I know do practice craft and technique, but I can only speak for Team Lowan - and calling us 'successful' at this point is optimistic, but I approve of optimism. It helps make pages.

For me, working on technique is a conscious, deliberate act. The entire time I'm drafting, I'm reading books on writing. It's a combination of learning new things and shoring up the seawalls with time tested practices. When I get even deeper into a writing trance, I take those observations down the rabbit hole with me, duck them in tight beside me, and then off we go.

So, I feel safe answering this question with a firm 'Yes.'

 

[Mad Swede]

Well, first things first. The Firm was John Grisham's second published book, so his fiction writing style was still in its early stages. Second, he's originally a lawyer by profession, and whether we writers like it or not the way we are taught and what we do for a living does tend to have an impact on our writing styles.

As others have mentioned, what is considered good writing technique changes with time and with fashion. His style of writing wasn't unusual for the period. I've enjoyed his books, but that doesn't mean I would ever write using the techniques he used.

 

[K.Hudson]

In the end the objective quality of a book or anything doesn't really matter if people are willing to buy it.
I generally don't trust the taste of the masses to tell me if something is good, however, or, at least, good to me.
I looked a the #1 bestseller, and just looking at the first few pages, I'd probably DNF after chapter 1. Just not my thing.

It does beg the question though: what actually makes something good?
I've been thinking of this with my book, because no way on earth my book is anywhere near bestseller material. I find, when you look at bestsellers, they tend to be fairly light material. Most people don't like heavy or philosophical themes. They like stories that make them feel the way social media makes them feel.
I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing. I have a few lighter books that I like as well. It's just human nature.

 

[pmmg]

Wow K, Just jumping right in.

I am not sure that good and bad are really the measure. If you book resonates with a following you will get readers, and if they go talk about it, you may get more. Following Goodreads is an education in only books that your friends read get to float by on the queue. If your friends did not read it, likely you wont either. So how to get the first ones reading... No easy feat.

After a few have gotten their hooks into it, will at start to matter if its good or not. But some books are catchy because they are bad and people like to hate it. So....what really matters? I dont know. I just write and hope that it might.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

One of my absolute favorite authors was a best seller who's work is festooned with dick jokes and barely concealed - or just blatant - sex. He did a lot of writing during lockdown, and from sheer boredom - and a need to spank an inner moppet or two - he gave us one of the most magnificent stories of his or of any time.

Hamlet.

What makes writing good is entirely subjective. "We all have truths, are mine the same as yours?" Maybe not, and that's okay.