Peg Herring's Blog - Posts Tagged "bad-writing"

The mystery I'm reading right now doesn't have it. The descriptions are artful, the plot moves along, the situation is unique and interesting. But I feel the author's hand on my shoulder, pushing me along, trying to make me believe what she needs me to believe in order to get to her conclusion.

Characters say things that sound, well, out of character, and I hear her yell, "THAT'S A CLUE, READER!" People explode with anger, blurting out their secrets when they should be cautious and subtle. Several minor characters can't seem to decide what their own personality traits are. The protagonist has already told me twice how beautiful she is ... and I'm supposed to like her?

Finally, everyone in the book except the protag, her ethnic sidekick, and the wrongly-accused client is nasty and not afraid to show it. I can't help but think that if there were that many overtly mean-spirited people in one spot for long, the earth would open up and swallow them in pure self-preservation. I also hope the people of this author's state don't read her books: the Chamber of Commerce would cringe at her slamming of the whole state's morals, legal system, and inhabitants.

Will I finish the book? Probably. Will I read another by this author? Probably not. Good authors paint images that make us believe the people and situations are real, no matter how outre they may be. Second-rate authors try to force us to accept their view of the world, and their characters are cartoonish stereotypes, spewing bad dialogue and doing unreasonable things to move a clunky plot along. Second rate doesn't get a second chance from me; there are too many good authors out there.

Since taking up this writing thing, I am asked about once a year to judge contests. I'm in that process now, and it causes me to wonder, "Who in the world published these people?"
We keep hearing about the gazillions of submissions agents and publishers receive each week, and I don't doubt that. The computer has made it easy to put down a collection of words and call it a novel. But oh. my. goodness. I can't have any sympathy for professionals who can't separate the chaff I'm being forced to read from anything even close to wheat. And yet, somebody published that chaff.
Ridiculous plots. Characters so stereotypical as to be funny, but not meant to be. Gratuitous scenes of sex and violence so childish I could almost hear the author say to him/herself, "Now what else can I do to this character to stretch out the book?" Bad guys so over the top that they should have Snidely Whiplash mustaches they can stroke while they deliver their lines.
If the competition for publishing space is so fierce, then why is so much bad writing being published?

Trick question. They're not, or at least they don't have to be. Some people I know have self-published, AFTER they thought about it for a long time. They paid an editor to find the errors they missed. They paid an artist to do a classy cover. They even paid a computer geek to make sure the formatting is clean, correct, and friendly to whatever e-reader would be used. Then and only then did they self-publish. Yay for them.
On the other hand, there are people who are too anxious, too egotistical, or too clueless to make their books the best they can be. I heard a (supposed) author say not too long ago, "I never edit. I just put it out there." Yeah, I'll bet that's what it is: out there.
The industry is changing--has changed. Authors can make their work available for sale to the public without waiting for an agent, an editor, or a publisher to deem it suitable. But that's a double-edged sword. Yes, it makes for variety, avoiding the "this is what sold well last time" mentality that many publishers exhibit. But unless a person is open to help and advice, quality suffers. Somebody has to tell an author when it isn't working. Somebody has to correct his or her mistakes in plotting, in syntax, and in spelling.
If you're going to be a self-published author, the responsibility falls on you. You have to do what a "real" publisher would do and submit your work to lots of people for criticism and suggestions. Don't want to put out a bad book? Then don't let your love affair with your own creative genius blind you to the possibility that without help from others, your book might be, indeed, really bad.

I visited with family yesterday, and there was a western on the TV that they muted when I arrived, being nice people. As we talked, the scenes played out, and I said, "Look, there's a zipper up the back of her dress."

I mentioned recently seeing a historical where a passing servant carried a crystal-clear pitcher through on a tray--pretty unlikely. The guy said he notices when movies use the wrong gun or the wrong tank. The woman said she notices horses and recognizes the same horse in different movies.

That led me to think about how we perceive things, and how differently. Watching the same movie, I'd be noticing anachronisms, he'd be looking at weaponry, and she'd be checking out the transportation.

I visited a book group a few months ago that had read a book by one of the mystery genre's current stars. The group was eclectic; some read mostly non-fiction and some "literary" fiction, whatever that is. I was interested to hear those members' comments, because they were totally put off by the unlikely events in the book: a ridiculous method of murder that a) shouldn't have worked, b) might easily have killed an innocent bystander instead of the victim, and c) could have been done better a dozen different ways.

One of the members, an avid mystery fan, defended the author, citing her wonderful characters, the beautiful setting, and her talent for description. She hadn't even noticed that the plot was murky.

There's that different perception thing. We see what we're looking for when we read, just as we do while watching a movie. As a reader of mysteries, I want a good crime to solve. While I stumble out of the story if the plot makes a clunky noise or the characters start acting unlike themselves, someone else might enjoy the flying bullets and exploding cars, while others just love that the author put in a lot of pretty horses.

How's that for alliteration?
It's also hyperbole, because I don't really think becoming a writer ruined reading for me. What it did do--and author friends and reviewers tell me they feel the same way--is make me more aware of what good writing is. That makes it hard to tolerate bad writing.
It's a little like knowing the rules of grammar. What doesn't bother some people in the slightest, like "Him and me went to the movies," makes others cringe.
My judgment of books has nothing to do with me as a writer, and I'm not putting myself above or below other authors. What I'm saying is that the practice of writing (a lot!) has made me aware of writing that's sloppy or lazy or not very good.
That ruins some of my attempts at reading. No matter how much the NY TIMES tells me I should like a book, I'll put it down after a few chapters if the characters haven't convinced me they're real or the plot is goofy or there hasn't been any real editing.
Being a writer doesn't ruin a book that's got all the elements right, and those books still delight me. Hard-boiled or cozy, literary or genre, if it's well done, I'll like it. And I'll appreciate it, too, which isn't quite the same thing.