LOVE those snippets! Part of the problem nowadays (as I see it) is that a lot (and I mean a LOT) of readers on social media complain about too much description, dialogue, and other (quote) "extraneous material" in books. A surprising number of readers declare that they won't read a book with a prologue (or, at least, they won't read the prologue and will instead begin with Chapter 1 so that they can get right into the story). These readers are impatient to not only get to the plot, but to get to the END of the story as soon as possible. I seriously believe that these readers don't actually like reading; they just like knowing the story. Reading the story is an inconvenience. It takes too long. They would no doubt be happier reading plot summaries than books.
That's fine. To each their own. The problem comes when writers and publishers (maybe even ESPECIALLY publishers) choose to let these readers influence them. These readers are LOUD on social media, and it's all too easy to believe that they represent a larger proportion of readers than they really do. In any case, I still believe that a writer can be successful by appealing to readers who actually want to read. There's still more than enough of them.
You're right. What's the story, how does it end, thank you, goodbye. It misses the point of reading, doesn't it? Maybe I should write something about delayed gratification being so much better than the instant variety :) - call it tantric reading, lol.
My Fault, Brotha Lumsden. Im the Guilty Party/Reader. Here is MY problem: The SAME damn books keep gitting WRITTEN. And I absolutely,positively LOVE to read. But Ion wanna keep seeing the Same shit. Its like MARTINE is gitting at here: the INDUSTRY wants to give U more JAMES ELLROY or MCCARTHY Wannabees....NO!! So YEAH, I skip to the end. NO, correct that: ION EVEN READ THE SHIT anymore!! Thats why I was STOKED when I came across what U were doing with a TIRED Genre. And I read the WHOLE Books.
I think too many WRITERS take their Readers TIME for Granted. Most Inveterate readers like Myself have been reading literally YEARS!! Please dont try give us the same fucking bullshit, tired Plot. We have seen that shit a million times by this point. In this way, I think SOCIAL MEDIA AGE has actually helped rather than HINDERED the reading Assessment process. If U cant GIT TO THE POINT while MAKING IT INTERESTING, YOU WONT BE ABLE TO KEEP YO READERS....U WONT BE ABLE TO GENERATE A BUZZ....Because Yo Writing does not ZING & SING...Has No POP!! I often say that if U cant write a GOOD TWEET, You prolly cant write a GOOD BOOK, neither.
Just like Douglas said, some readers would be happier with a synopsis, there are also readers (and a lot of them!) that just can't get enough of the same tired stories, and very often not very well written either. I was at a small book fair weeks ago - it wasn't my scene, all romance. Just looking at the covers I felt tired. How many bare-chested cookie-cutter hunks can you take, lol. I peeked inside a few, not the hunks, the books, read a few back page blurbs, and yawned. The thing is, that stuff wouldn't be written if it didn't sell. The book fair was packed. What's a writer to do, right? Keep at it, I say. Do our own thing and do it well.
Nah, you aren't the reader I'm talking about. You're looking for intelligence in a story, not just a plot synopsis. That's why I love your works. Even the pulpiest of your stories are deep, and you can do it with stripped-down prose. I agree with you about Twitter. Those 250-character limits are great for helping you get to the point and deliver a message.
Enjoyed this post, Martine, and great excerpts. I need to add Burke to my TBR. What are your thoughts on short stories versus novels being flat? Does having fewer words for a story mean you can't make it as stylized? What do you think?
I read a lot of short stories (from buddies, and from the Punk Noir submission pile). Maybe I'm lucky but I find the literary quality of these stories excellent. Yes, occasionally there will be some that are blah, or cover themes that have been worked to death already. The flatness strikes me less in shorts... maybe because the compressed nature forces the writers to be more "spare" with the word choices or the sentence structures. No room for fluff. When a text is more concentrated, I guess the writer's personality shows through.
Well, and then we've got Faulkner. "Barn Burning" has one of my favorite sentences ever written:
"His father had struck him before last night but never before had he paused afterward to explain why; it was as if the blow and the following calm, outrageous voice still rang, repercussed, divulging nothing to him save the terrible handicap of being young, the light weight of his few years, just heavy enough to prevent his soaring free of the world as it seemed to be ordered but not heavy enough to keep him footed solid in it, to resist it and try to change the course of its events."
Great observations! If reading a novel is about capturing a plot, speeding through the plot points, pinch points to the final crisis and resolution, and then doing it all over again, it's a compulsion. And if plot consumption is the point, why not read a good plot summary instead? Then one could read multiple 'novels' per day. Good writing, formerly known as art and creativity, can't be about just producing plots for this kind of consumption.
Great meditation, Martine. This metaphor just popped into my head: some readers want to be driven to their destination without a lot of chitchat; some want to forego the car altogether, pack a lunch, choose a stick for walking.
On the flipside, there's a big contingent of new writers who also just want to get it done, get it published, and hang out the Author shingle; others tend to worry that the title must be earned. I'll just be over here with my butt in a chair putting one word after the other and crossing my fingers. ;)
Wonderful observations and examples. I'm a big Chandler and James Lee Burke fan. About to start a new novel and it made me think more about my main character and how to give him a voice.
Martine! You and I love so many of the same authors. Chandler, Burke, McCarthy. I once had the opportunity to stop in on Burke in Lolo when I lived nearby. I regret not taking the time. He's a champ, and I love Dave R.
I love this!!! Such great and perfect quotes to get across the point (which I completely agree with.)
Stories and novels are getting flatter, in my observance. And they lack individuality, which is so often rooted in voice... anyone could have written them.
A reminder to me to grab another Burke book off my shelf.
In her book on writing suspense fiction, Patricia Highsmith talked about the trouble with flat writing... her own, that of others. That inspired me, and then, reading The Art of Subtext (Charles Baxter) I found the first clear explanation of the problem I've seen. It's too long to paraphrase, but he makes the point that in novels with subtext, what is left unsaid, is as important (or more) than what is said. Doing that well is hard.
Between the lines... like the importance of silent pauses in music, or the quietness of an actor in a scene. It's something I'm very aware of, the balance between saying too much and not saying enough (and losing the reader).
I always think of "style" as the author's voice. It is usually obvious even when an author writes in a different genre, or uses a different name. Nora Roberts/JD Robb comes to mind. Her voice carries over into both names.
Good stories in any medium are about interesting people doing interesting things and coveyed in an interesting manner. There's a audience for plot-driven stories, but weak characters won't hold them together. Strong characters are more likely to be doing something I want to know about. Totally up to the writer which way they go. I wonder if most writers even ask themselves why they are writing what they're writing. I'll bet the greats you mentioned in your post sure did. You always can tell the ones with heart and soul. There's no life on a blank page. It's just as void as a block of marble or an empty staff sheet until the artist brings the idea to life. Another interesting, thought-provoking post!
Excellent observations. I'm a big fan of Chandler and James Lee Burke. Starting a new novel and it's sparked me to think deeper about the style of my MC.
I really appreciate this post, Martine. I can’t tell you how many popular books I have started and left unfinished because the writing is so damned flat. Far, far too many. It feels like the authors are all trying to sound alike. I enjoyed all the excerpts you’ve included here and started the French excerpt, and kept reading, and reading, and reading…despite having read (and enjoy) the book before!
Im all for this Rant.... THIS PART: The obvious answer: James Ellroy’s machine-gun approach. Faulkner’s lyrical/biblical sentence construction. Cormac McCarthy’s baroque poetry (and lack of dialogue tags). And of course, CHANDLER....and for especially for me ICEBERG SLIM/ROBERT DECOY/WALTER MOSLEY/ZORA NEALE HURSTON/GAYL JONES..... I 1nce made a Tweet that said: I got My Own ELEMENTS OF STILE U AINT SEEN IN AWHILE....
LOVE those snippets! Part of the problem nowadays (as I see it) is that a lot (and I mean a LOT) of readers on social media complain about too much description, dialogue, and other (quote) "extraneous material" in books. A surprising number of readers declare that they won't read a book with a prologue (or, at least, they won't read the prologue and will instead begin with Chapter 1 so that they can get right into the story). These readers are impatient to not only get to the plot, but to get to the END of the story as soon as possible. I seriously believe that these readers don't actually like reading; they just like knowing the story. Reading the story is an inconvenience. It takes too long. They would no doubt be happier reading plot summaries than books.
That's fine. To each their own. The problem comes when writers and publishers (maybe even ESPECIALLY publishers) choose to let these readers influence them. These readers are LOUD on social media, and it's all too easy to believe that they represent a larger proportion of readers than they really do. In any case, I still believe that a writer can be successful by appealing to readers who actually want to read. There's still more than enough of them.
You're right. What's the story, how does it end, thank you, goodbye. It misses the point of reading, doesn't it? Maybe I should write something about delayed gratification being so much better than the instant variety :) - call it tantric reading, lol.
My Fault, Brotha Lumsden. Im the Guilty Party/Reader. Here is MY problem: The SAME damn books keep gitting WRITTEN. And I absolutely,positively LOVE to read. But Ion wanna keep seeing the Same shit. Its like MARTINE is gitting at here: the INDUSTRY wants to give U more JAMES ELLROY or MCCARTHY Wannabees....NO!! So YEAH, I skip to the end. NO, correct that: ION EVEN READ THE SHIT anymore!! Thats why I was STOKED when I came across what U were doing with a TIRED Genre. And I read the WHOLE Books.
I think too many WRITERS take their Readers TIME for Granted. Most Inveterate readers like Myself have been reading literally YEARS!! Please dont try give us the same fucking bullshit, tired Plot. We have seen that shit a million times by this point. In this way, I think SOCIAL MEDIA AGE has actually helped rather than HINDERED the reading Assessment process. If U cant GIT TO THE POINT while MAKING IT INTERESTING, YOU WONT BE ABLE TO KEEP YO READERS....U WONT BE ABLE TO GENERATE A BUZZ....Because Yo Writing does not ZING & SING...Has No POP!! I often say that if U cant write a GOOD TWEET, You prolly cant write a GOOD BOOK, neither.
Just like Douglas said, some readers would be happier with a synopsis, there are also readers (and a lot of them!) that just can't get enough of the same tired stories, and very often not very well written either. I was at a small book fair weeks ago - it wasn't my scene, all romance. Just looking at the covers I felt tired. How many bare-chested cookie-cutter hunks can you take, lol. I peeked inside a few, not the hunks, the books, read a few back page blurbs, and yawned. The thing is, that stuff wouldn't be written if it didn't sell. The book fair was packed. What's a writer to do, right? Keep at it, I say. Do our own thing and do it well.
Nah, you aren't the reader I'm talking about. You're looking for intelligence in a story, not just a plot synopsis. That's why I love your works. Even the pulpiest of your stories are deep, and you can do it with stripped-down prose. I agree with you about Twitter. Those 250-character limits are great for helping you get to the point and deliver a message.
Enjoyed this post, Martine, and great excerpts. I need to add Burke to my TBR. What are your thoughts on short stories versus novels being flat? Does having fewer words for a story mean you can't make it as stylized? What do you think?
I read a lot of short stories (from buddies, and from the Punk Noir submission pile). Maybe I'm lucky but I find the literary quality of these stories excellent. Yes, occasionally there will be some that are blah, or cover themes that have been worked to death already. The flatness strikes me less in shorts... maybe because the compressed nature forces the writers to be more "spare" with the word choices or the sentence structures. No room for fluff. When a text is more concentrated, I guess the writer's personality shows through.
Well, and then we've got Faulkner. "Barn Burning" has one of my favorite sentences ever written:
"His father had struck him before last night but never before had he paused afterward to explain why; it was as if the blow and the following calm, outrageous voice still rang, repercussed, divulging nothing to him save the terrible handicap of being young, the light weight of his few years, just heavy enough to prevent his soaring free of the world as it seemed to be ordered but not heavy enough to keep him footed solid in it, to resist it and try to change the course of its events."
Golly, that gets me every time.
The entire story...
Great observations! If reading a novel is about capturing a plot, speeding through the plot points, pinch points to the final crisis and resolution, and then doing it all over again, it's a compulsion. And if plot consumption is the point, why not read a good plot summary instead? Then one could read multiple 'novels' per day. Good writing, formerly known as art and creativity, can't be about just producing plots for this kind of consumption.
I didn't want to bring the AI debate in this, but that is the crux, isn't it? Plot generators with a sprinkling of borrowed style, "in the manner of".
Great meditation, Martine. This metaphor just popped into my head: some readers want to be driven to their destination without a lot of chitchat; some want to forego the car altogether, pack a lunch, choose a stick for walking.
On the flipside, there's a big contingent of new writers who also just want to get it done, get it published, and hang out the Author shingle; others tend to worry that the title must be earned. I'll just be over here with my butt in a chair putting one word after the other and crossing my fingers. ;)
A great metaphor. As a reader, I'm often driven "to find out what happens", great writers stop me in my tracks to ponder and that is a good thing.
Wonderful observations and examples. I'm a big Chandler and James Lee Burke fan. About to start a new novel and it made me think more about my main character and how to give him a voice.
Martine! You and I love so many of the same authors. Chandler, Burke, McCarthy. I once had the opportunity to stop in on Burke in Lolo when I lived nearby. I regret not taking the time. He's a champ, and I love Dave R.
Tin Roof Blowdown was the first of his I read, and still my favorite.
I love this!!! Such great and perfect quotes to get across the point (which I completely agree with.)
Stories and novels are getting flatter, in my observance. And they lack individuality, which is so often rooted in voice... anyone could have written them.
A reminder to me to grab another Burke book off my shelf.
Thanks!
That Chandler quote kills me, lol.
In her book on writing suspense fiction, Patricia Highsmith talked about the trouble with flat writing... her own, that of others. That inspired me, and then, reading The Art of Subtext (Charles Baxter) I found the first clear explanation of the problem I've seen. It's too long to paraphrase, but he makes the point that in novels with subtext, what is left unsaid, is as important (or more) than what is said. Doing that well is hard.
Between the lines... like the importance of silent pauses in music, or the quietness of an actor in a scene. It's something I'm very aware of, the balance between saying too much and not saying enough (and losing the reader).
I always think of "style" as the author's voice. It is usually obvious even when an author writes in a different genre, or uses a different name. Nora Roberts/JD Robb comes to mind. Her voice carries over into both names.
Good stories in any medium are about interesting people doing interesting things and coveyed in an interesting manner. There's a audience for plot-driven stories, but weak characters won't hold them together. Strong characters are more likely to be doing something I want to know about. Totally up to the writer which way they go. I wonder if most writers even ask themselves why they are writing what they're writing. I'll bet the greats you mentioned in your post sure did. You always can tell the ones with heart and soul. There's no life on a blank page. It's just as void as a block of marble or an empty staff sheet until the artist brings the idea to life. Another interesting, thought-provoking post!
Excellent observations. I'm a big fan of Chandler and James Lee Burke. Starting a new novel and it's sparked me to think deeper about the style of my MC.
I really appreciate this post, Martine. I can’t tell you how many popular books I have started and left unfinished because the writing is so damned flat. Far, far too many. It feels like the authors are all trying to sound alike. I enjoyed all the excerpts you’ve included here and started the French excerpt, and kept reading, and reading, and reading…despite having read (and enjoy) the book before!
Im all for this Rant.... THIS PART: The obvious answer: James Ellroy’s machine-gun approach. Faulkner’s lyrical/biblical sentence construction. Cormac McCarthy’s baroque poetry (and lack of dialogue tags). And of course, CHANDLER....and for especially for me ICEBERG SLIM/ROBERT DECOY/WALTER MOSLEY/ZORA NEALE HURSTON/GAYL JONES..... I 1nce made a Tweet that said: I got My Own ELEMENTS OF STILE U AINT SEEN IN AWHILE....
Great examples!