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

[BWFoster78]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Steerpike]

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]

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]

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 Ämting]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 Ämting]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

...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.