Peg Herring's Blog - Posts Tagged "good-writing"
Writing's Rules
Rule #1-It has to be good.
Rule #2-Nobody agrees on what "good" means.
Rule #2-Nobody agrees on what "good" means.
Do You Have an Ear for Literature?
I spent twenty-six years in the tenth grade, twenty-seven if you count the year I was actually a sophomore. In that time, I tried very hard to make reading a good thing for my students, offering variety, encouragement, and gentle nudges on to the next reading level. One of the things I learned is that the "ear" for literary excellence is tricky. Age, ability, and inclination all enter into it, and while there are some who have a tin ear for literature, most can develop their sense of "good" literature if they try.
There are three facets of reading. We can teach people to decode words. We can teach them to find the pertinent facts and details as they read. We cannot teach appreciation, but we can develop it, or rather, the reader can, with practice. Life experience, understanding of character, detection of sarcasm, satire, and misdirection are all things that come with reading and discussing literature with others. Teachers have to focus on more than "Did they read the piece?" and "Can they answer the questions at the end of the chapter?" Students might read, might be able to tell you who the main characters are in a piece, but they often have difficulty with the tone if they are tuned in to only decoding and recalling details. They can miss Mark Twain's comedy genius entirely as they fight their way through "My Grandfather's Ram", trying to find the story line.
Appreciation comes from reading a wide variety of works, which to me is what the job of a literature teacher is all about. While we all might know what we LIKE to read, a teacher's job is to help us develop our literary ears, so we have a larger sense of what really good writing is.
There are three facets of reading. We can teach people to decode words. We can teach them to find the pertinent facts and details as they read. We cannot teach appreciation, but we can develop it, or rather, the reader can, with practice. Life experience, understanding of character, detection of sarcasm, satire, and misdirection are all things that come with reading and discussing literature with others. Teachers have to focus on more than "Did they read the piece?" and "Can they answer the questions at the end of the chapter?" Students might read, might be able to tell you who the main characters are in a piece, but they often have difficulty with the tone if they are tuned in to only decoding and recalling details. They can miss Mark Twain's comedy genius entirely as they fight their way through "My Grandfather's Ram", trying to find the story line.
Appreciation comes from reading a wide variety of works, which to me is what the job of a literature teacher is all about. While we all might know what we LIKE to read, a teacher's job is to help us develop our literary ears, so we have a larger sense of what really good writing is.
Automatic Reading Versus Involved Reading
Sometimes you feel like a rut; sometimes you don't.
There are books that are automatic. You know the characters, know how they're going to react. You know, generally, what situations they will encounter, and you know they will triumph in the end. Books of this type, when well done, are entertaining, and authors like Sue Grafton and Lee Child do well with them.
Non-automatic books take a different type of writing. The reader does not know what to expect, does not know what the characters will encounter or if they will triumph. I've just begun THE SAMURAI'S GARDEN, and it has that feel. Such books tend to be termed "literary fiction" while those above are termed "genre fiction".
I guess that's fair, but there's room for both types of writing in my life. Sometimes I want--maybe even need--to know that the story will end with the ends neatly tied up. (I didn't even mind when it seemed our hero was blown up in an underground explosion a few books back, because I knew he was going to be fine.) Sometimes, I want that edgy feeling of not knowing, of not reading the same old thing, and then I lean more to the literary side of fiction.
What I find I can no longer abide is bad writing on either side. Genre fiction that is so stereotypical or childishly drawn that it's an insult to my intelligence. Literary fiction that dresses nothing up in pretty words and expects everyone to admire it, like the Emperor's new clothes.
Writing, whatever level, whatever genre, whatever subject, has to be good writing. If a writer can entertain me with the same character doing similar things for a dozen books, good for him. If a different writer weaves a spell around me for the duration of a book, if he or she takes me deeper into the human condition, wonderful. There are a few who can do both, and those are the ones whose next book I await with anticipation. But I don't require all things of all authors. Just do what you do well, and I'll find a time when I'm in just the right mood to enjoy it.
There are books that are automatic. You know the characters, know how they're going to react. You know, generally, what situations they will encounter, and you know they will triumph in the end. Books of this type, when well done, are entertaining, and authors like Sue Grafton and Lee Child do well with them.
Non-automatic books take a different type of writing. The reader does not know what to expect, does not know what the characters will encounter or if they will triumph. I've just begun THE SAMURAI'S GARDEN, and it has that feel. Such books tend to be termed "literary fiction" while those above are termed "genre fiction".
I guess that's fair, but there's room for both types of writing in my life. Sometimes I want--maybe even need--to know that the story will end with the ends neatly tied up. (I didn't even mind when it seemed our hero was blown up in an underground explosion a few books back, because I knew he was going to be fine.) Sometimes, I want that edgy feeling of not knowing, of not reading the same old thing, and then I lean more to the literary side of fiction.
What I find I can no longer abide is bad writing on either side. Genre fiction that is so stereotypical or childishly drawn that it's an insult to my intelligence. Literary fiction that dresses nothing up in pretty words and expects everyone to admire it, like the Emperor's new clothes.
Writing, whatever level, whatever genre, whatever subject, has to be good writing. If a writer can entertain me with the same character doing similar things for a dozen books, good for him. If a different writer weaves a spell around me for the duration of a book, if he or she takes me deeper into the human condition, wonderful. There are a few who can do both, and those are the ones whose next book I await with anticipation. But I don't require all things of all authors. Just do what you do well, and I'll find a time when I'm in just the right mood to enjoy it.
The "It" Author
No, I don't mean Stephen King, at least not specifically. "It" authors are like the "It Girl" of bygone days-the star that has a quality we can't really define. People just say the person has got "it".
I just finished a book by Tim Hallinan, and I'm pretty sure he's got "it". I didn't like the characters much, not even the protagonist. They're into a world I find distasteful, and they make some really bad choices, to use psycho-speak. There might even have been holes in the plot. However, I read right up to the end, because Hallinan has "it", that vague quality that makes a reader, once she's started, want to read on.
Of course, not everyone likes every author's work. The above-mentioned Stephen King definitely has "it" (pun intended) but not for me. Other authors that readers rave about leave me less than thrilled, too. At the same time, I respond to authors that make my friends look at me funny. ("You LIKE that stuff?")
I recognize personal differences of opinion on what is good reading. Still, there is an "it" quality to the best books that attracts readers and makes them run around telling other people how great an author is. "It" makes fans wait breathlessly for an author's next book and makes them a little sad when they finally get it and finish too quickly, so there's a year to wait for another.
I'm pleased when people tell me that a book of mine grabbed them, kept them reading, and made them anxious for the next one. The best books have got "it", and the best authors seem to find "it" every time.
I just finished a book by Tim Hallinan, and I'm pretty sure he's got "it". I didn't like the characters much, not even the protagonist. They're into a world I find distasteful, and they make some really bad choices, to use psycho-speak. There might even have been holes in the plot. However, I read right up to the end, because Hallinan has "it", that vague quality that makes a reader, once she's started, want to read on.
Of course, not everyone likes every author's work. The above-mentioned Stephen King definitely has "it" (pun intended) but not for me. Other authors that readers rave about leave me less than thrilled, too. At the same time, I respond to authors that make my friends look at me funny. ("You LIKE that stuff?")
I recognize personal differences of opinion on what is good reading. Still, there is an "it" quality to the best books that attracts readers and makes them run around telling other people how great an author is. "It" makes fans wait breathlessly for an author's next book and makes them a little sad when they finally get it and finish too quickly, so there's a year to wait for another.
I'm pleased when people tell me that a book of mine grabbed them, kept them reading, and made them anxious for the next one. The best books have got "it", and the best authors seem to find "it" every time.
Mysteries Are Junk
That got your attention, didn't it? We mystery readers love our mysteries. We have our favorite authors and wait excitedly for their next book (Yes, I preordered Lee Child's next Reacher novel.) We discuss the plots, characters, et cetera over lunch, by Internet, and at mystery cons (Can't wait for B-con in less than a month!) And we devour them one after another, eyeing the next one in the TBR pile as we finish the current one.
But we know they're junk. Throwaways of the literary world. Genre fiction. Passing fancies. Light reading. Something to pass the time.
Think about older mysteries. They become charming reflections of worlds past, but most of us don't read them anymore. Yes, we recognize that Christie and Sayers and Chandler were groundbreakers, but life has passed them by. They're quaint. Out-dated. There's not a CSI in sight.
Even with mysteries of only a few years ago, problems arise. I was re-reading a MS I wrote in early 2011 and realized that technology has already passed it by. The guy is lugging around a laptop so he can connect to the Internet. Yeah, right.
Themes change, too. What was spooky becomes blase, and what was groundbreaking becomes boring. We're told that vampires are out, now (thank goodness) and mermaids are in (WHAT?). Many writers rush off to chase the current trend, but sooner or later, all the crafts will be covered, all the possible serial killer scenarios will be explored, all the life-problems possible for the protagonist will be examined.
So mysteries, at least the vast majority of them, are trash. They will be tossed into landfills, left unread on library shelves, and inherited in dusty cardboard boxes by heirs who try earnestly to give them to someone, anyone. They're so much alike that we can't recall if we read this one or not, so we put a little mark somewhere inside or list it on Goodreads or try some other way to prevent wasting money re-buying an already read book. (E-readers help us keep track: a bonus for technology.) Most of us will admit that even the books of authors we like become a muddle in our heads, and we play the "Seinfeld" game with each other: "It's the one where Betty has to confront the fears of her childhood when Archibald sends her to the Caribbean to look for pirate treasure."
Oh, yes. I did read that one. Wasn't it great?
What does endure in mystery, as in any genre, is quality writing, the capturing of human interaction at its worst and best. All the clever plot devices and eccentric characters in the world can't replace the drama of man versus man (or human versus human if you prefer). Fifty or a hundred years from now, if people are captivated by any of today's mysteries, it might be to get a glimpse of our times, to chuckle at the primitve methods of crime-solving or the antiquated trappings. But if the writing is excellent, if the struggle for good is presented believably and compellingly, then that mystery will not be junk. That mystery will be a classic.
But we know they're junk. Throwaways of the literary world. Genre fiction. Passing fancies. Light reading. Something to pass the time.
Think about older mysteries. They become charming reflections of worlds past, but most of us don't read them anymore. Yes, we recognize that Christie and Sayers and Chandler were groundbreakers, but life has passed them by. They're quaint. Out-dated. There's not a CSI in sight.
Even with mysteries of only a few years ago, problems arise. I was re-reading a MS I wrote in early 2011 and realized that technology has already passed it by. The guy is lugging around a laptop so he can connect to the Internet. Yeah, right.
Themes change, too. What was spooky becomes blase, and what was groundbreaking becomes boring. We're told that vampires are out, now (thank goodness) and mermaids are in (WHAT?). Many writers rush off to chase the current trend, but sooner or later, all the crafts will be covered, all the possible serial killer scenarios will be explored, all the life-problems possible for the protagonist will be examined.
So mysteries, at least the vast majority of them, are trash. They will be tossed into landfills, left unread on library shelves, and inherited in dusty cardboard boxes by heirs who try earnestly to give them to someone, anyone. They're so much alike that we can't recall if we read this one or not, so we put a little mark somewhere inside or list it on Goodreads or try some other way to prevent wasting money re-buying an already read book. (E-readers help us keep track: a bonus for technology.) Most of us will admit that even the books of authors we like become a muddle in our heads, and we play the "Seinfeld" game with each other: "It's the one where Betty has to confront the fears of her childhood when Archibald sends her to the Caribbean to look for pirate treasure."
Oh, yes. I did read that one. Wasn't it great?
What does endure in mystery, as in any genre, is quality writing, the capturing of human interaction at its worst and best. All the clever plot devices and eccentric characters in the world can't replace the drama of man versus man (or human versus human if you prefer). Fifty or a hundred years from now, if people are captivated by any of today's mysteries, it might be to get a glimpse of our times, to chuckle at the primitve methods of crime-solving or the antiquated trappings. But if the writing is excellent, if the struggle for good is presented believably and compellingly, then that mystery will not be junk. That mystery will be a classic.
Hackneyed Plots and Not So Much
They say there are only twenty or so. Plots can be boiled down to certain themes: coming of age, finding love, restoring justice, etc. The devil, as they say, is in the details.
Mysteries tend to be about restoring--or at least seeking--justice, so the reasons we choose and read certain mysteries will often relate to subthemes. Many like mysteries where they learn about a job, a craft, a way of life. I like some of that, too, but I also want some creativity in the way the protag looks for justice.
I just finished a book that was okay. There was a subtheme about a certain job/lifestyle, and there was lots of interesting info about how people operate in that setting. The mystery, however, was so trite as to be irritating, and the human interest part of the story so predictable that I was thinking, "Okay, in this chapter she's going to fight with her boyfriend again, so I'll just skip to the next one and get back to the story."
It's a problem with genre fiction, and the reason I seldom read romances. The reader knows how the story goes as well as the writer, so there isn't any tension.
On the other hand, there are mysteries (and romances, too) that break the mold and make the old search-for-justice theme new and interesting. Finished with (mostly skimming) the book mentioned above, I began a new book where I was pulled into the story right away. I don't know what's going to happen, but I want to know, because I care about the characters and the author has skillfully led me into their lives. I'm liking it a lot, though I'm only about ten chapters in.
You want to know what it is, don't you? It's called AN UNCERTAIN REFUGE by Carolyn Rose.
Now, I might come back next week and tell you I was disappointed in the ending--don't know, haven't got there yet. But I really won't mind, because I'm getting my money's worth along the way. Plots are indeed limited to certain themes, but a good author takes that theme and makes a worthwhile story of it.
And that's what I'm talking about!
Mysteries tend to be about restoring--or at least seeking--justice, so the reasons we choose and read certain mysteries will often relate to subthemes. Many like mysteries where they learn about a job, a craft, a way of life. I like some of that, too, but I also want some creativity in the way the protag looks for justice.
I just finished a book that was okay. There was a subtheme about a certain job/lifestyle, and there was lots of interesting info about how people operate in that setting. The mystery, however, was so trite as to be irritating, and the human interest part of the story so predictable that I was thinking, "Okay, in this chapter she's going to fight with her boyfriend again, so I'll just skip to the next one and get back to the story."
It's a problem with genre fiction, and the reason I seldom read romances. The reader knows how the story goes as well as the writer, so there isn't any tension.
On the other hand, there are mysteries (and romances, too) that break the mold and make the old search-for-justice theme new and interesting. Finished with (mostly skimming) the book mentioned above, I began a new book where I was pulled into the story right away. I don't know what's going to happen, but I want to know, because I care about the characters and the author has skillfully led me into their lives. I'm liking it a lot, though I'm only about ten chapters in.
You want to know what it is, don't you? It's called AN UNCERTAIN REFUGE by Carolyn Rose.
Now, I might come back next week and tell you I was disappointed in the ending--don't know, haven't got there yet. But I really won't mind, because I'm getting my money's worth along the way. Plots are indeed limited to certain themes, but a good author takes that theme and makes a worthwhile story of it.
And that's what I'm talking about!
What Do You Notice?
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.
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.
Writing Ruins Reading
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.
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.
