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

[Leif Notae]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Steerpike]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.