I'm going to theorize that you over-explain, since the lack of explanation is what you see as one of the big problems with the sample, and what I see as its best point.
It doesn't matter whether you write well or not, because the critics apparently don't read. I came to this startling conclusion after reading the back of a Stephan Lawhead novel. The critic said that it was a wonderful work reminiscent of the style and imagery of Tolkien. It left me wondering if the critic had actually read either authors. Tolkien wrote high fantasy; Lawhead wrote portal fantasy. Tolkien wrote 3rd person; Lawhead wrote 1st person. Tolkien wrote about the Iron Age; Lawhead wrote about the early part of the Dark Ages. Tolkien made up his own language; Lawhead used Goidelic and referenced the Ogham. Tolkien had hobbits, elves, dwarfs, orcs, wizards, etc; Lawhead only has people and demons. Since the critics don't seem to actually read the books, we can all relax and just trust the the publisher will come up with a good title and cover art so that we can all get good reviews.
I do write Flash Fiction, but I do read quite widely. As in another thread, when I look at actual published fiction, I don't find anything that takes as long to get going as the example I gave. When I look at real fiction, even the first page will usually 'get on with it' much more quickly. And frequently there is more 'movement'. Either actual physical movement or more dramatic movement and progression. Or at least something more dramatic, perhaps even shocking, to get the pot boiling. Also, it's not just me saying that the start has to pull people in, that movement helps, etc. Len Edgerton's book "Hooked: Write Fiction that Grabs Readers at Page One and Never Lets Them Go" Wherever I look, I keep seeing that sort of advice. And when I read published fiction, that's what I find. E.g. this page here: http://tahomaliteraryreview.com/2015/01/06/some-things-i-can-tell-from-the-slush-pile/ I see that sort of advice in too many places and written by too many people to not think that it's just a rare subjective opinion. One thing, people have been saying they didn't know what genre the book was from. If that hasn't been established after a page or so, then doesn't that in itself mean that it is bad writing. The feedback I get in the Writing Workshop seems to suggest that I under-explain. That's the primary complaint I get. I'm not saying that you're wrong; I'm just saying that it's quite complicated to know what's best because feedback varies a lot due to personal preferences.
I had a quick look at a couple of your workshop pieces, and I'm wondering if you're hitting the wrong compromise between under and over explaining. Your "bad writing" piece here is pretty close to the character's thoughts, and in that case, I don't need or want a lot of explanatory context; it wouldn't feel natural. Your pieces were further outside the characters' heads, and in that case the reader is "riding " with the narrator and not the character. The narrator knows all, so declining to explain feels less natural.
Well, we're sort-of leaving the topic of the thread here. I do think the OP here is worthwhile discussing. In terms of what characteristics certain types of writing should have, at the moment I'm looking at places where I would like to be published and see what stories are published there. Also, my favourite authors. In both these cases, riding outside the head is quite common. E.g. Robert Sheckley stories, such as "Bad Medicine" or "Shape" (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32346/32346-h/32346-h.htm). I would very much like to publish in Daily Science Fiction. I'm 0/2 for stories submitted there so far. If I look at the stories published there, e.g. http://dailysciencefiction.com/fantasy/fairy-tales/k-g-jewell/a-dragons-apology, then I don't think I'm that different in style. Having said that, one of my pieces recently accepted for publication was 100% continuous inner monologue. It's been a point of this thread that there are different definitions of "bad writing" in different genres. I am looking specifically at what gets published in my genres. Because that's the only objective measure I have of 'bad writing'. I of course add my own subjective evaluation as well, but I can't do it all inside my own head and get anywhere. This is getting too personal. It might be interesting if we give more examples of bad writing and see what we all think is bad, and not.
Though Amanda McKittrick Ros did pretty good in her day - sold books, she was also ridiculed ( might've been the E.L. James of her time. ) I find her writing confusing. Mainly because it's convoluted and pretentious. I feel like I'm wading through frills to get to the point. Can anyone tell what's going on here? Here's a hint - The third sentence explains all the rigamarole.
Isolated from the text, it is some work. And it's not clear to me why, if he's so happy now and has an "opportunity," he doesn't look forward to someone who wants to show him affection.
So...apparently I don't understand the purpose of this thread. I'm not intending to say that snarkishly, though looking at it I sound that way. OP, what's the purpose of this thread?
It's impossible to say objectively what is good writing and what is bad writing. But, even though it's impossible, it's what we have to do to improve our writing. Discuss.
A few miles south of Soledad,the Salinas River drops in close to the hillside bank and runs deep and green.The water is warm too,for it has slipped twinkling over the yellow sands in the sunlight before reaching the narrow pool.On one side of the river the golden foothill slopes curve up to the strong and rocky Gabilan Mountains, but on the valley side the water is lined with trees- willows fresh and green with every spring, carrying in their lower leaf junctures the debris of the winter's flooding; and sycamores with mottled, white, recumbent limbs and branches that arch over the pool.On the sandy bank under the trees the leaves lie deep and so crisp that a lizard makes a great skittering if he runs among them.Rabbits come out of the brush to sit on the sand in the evening,and the damp flats are covered with the night tracksof 'coons,and with the spread pads of dogs from the ranches, and with the split-wedgetracks of deer that come to drink in the dark. There is a path through the willows and among the sycamores, a path beaten hard by boys coming down from the ranches to swim in the deep pool, and beaten hard by tramps who come wearily down from the highway in the evening to jungle-up near water. In front of the low horizontal limb of a giant sycamore there is an ash pile made by many fires; the limb is worn smooth by men who have sat on it. Evening of a hot day started the little wind to moving among the leaves. The shade climbed up the hills toward the top.On the sand banksthe rabbits sat as quietly as little gray sculptured stones.And then from the direction of the state highway came the sound of footsteps on crisp sycamore leaves. The rabbits hurried noiselessly for cover. A stilted heron labored up into the air and pounded down river.For a moment the place was lifeless, and then two men emerged from the path and came into the opening by the green pool. One of the most celebrated openings in modern literature, but it's about setting a scene and a mood, not about action.
Not about action, but there is movement. Remember that I criticised my own example for lacking movement, not action. The first paragraph is mostly static; even then there is the movement of the lizard. In the second we have people moving: boys coming to swim and tramps coming down from the highway. In the third we have footsteps of two men arriving. (In hindsight, of course we know they are George and Lennie.) First as disembodied footsteps, and then they emerge. The paragraphs develop. The first features the environment and animals. The second introduces humans. The third places the main characters in the scene. In this way, I'd describe the introduction as being similar in structure to White Fang, but not so active - slower paced. Still, the environment comes in, animals are introduced, then people, then more about the story (the coffin in White Fang, the two men in Of Mice and Men). Of Mice and Men is of course from 1937, or 78 years ago. Les Edgerton covers this in his book. Many of the classics of previous centuries start with large amounts of description or even backstory that would be ... perhaps 'disagreed with' in fiction written today. We as a society distinguish between things (of many types) from history, and things of today. Things from the past are appreciated for what they were when they happened. Things from today are evaluated with different rules. Styles of writing have changed considerably. Just because something (e.g.) would have been excellent if written in (say) 1937 or 1837 doesn't mean that it would be excellent if someone wrote it today. What once was fresh and new, becomes old and stilted. This doesn't mean that we criticise what was written in the past as bad; we evaluate it in the context that it was originally evaluated within. But even when we do look at things from the past, they still seem quite OK by modern standards. Maybe the first chapter there would be shorter if written with a modern sensibility. But, it's not far off what I would consider to be good writing of today.
Here is the first part of the main section of Moll Flanders by Daniel Defoe, published around 1722. The language is dated, there being very few full stops; the sentences are very long, Defoe using a variety of punctuation to keep sentences going over whole paragraphs even if they end up containing several different ideas; this is very different from modern speech and would probably be edited up the wazoo should it be done by a modern author who submitted their book to a modern editor, but this doesn't stop the book being a classic: very important in English literature. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/370/370-h/370-h.htm In my opinion, the speed of narrative and the lack of details is similar to modern fiction. Perhaps it's because that has gone out of style and come back again. But then again, even the long sentences are absolutely nothing on Will Self, a respected modern author. Though, I don't personally enjoy Self's writing, though he's very good on panel comedy shows. But, I wouldn't call his writing bad, just not to my taste.
I don't know - it feels like you're kinda blurring things up, here. White Fang was written well before Of Mice and Men, so if one shouldn't be an example because it's old, why should the other be an example when it's older? I'm not really interested in changing your mind about what you should be shooting for in your own writing - do what you think is best. But in terms of deciding what's "good" writing, you seem to be using the standard of what's "currently publishable" writing, and I really, really think that's a standard that is far too varied to make any sort of sense. Different genres, different editors, different audiences. Different writing getting published. If you want to focus on movement in your writing, that can be your style. That's great. But I really don't think it will make your writing universally more "publishable" than writing that focuses on something else. If publication is your goal, study the markets, for sure. But you have to keep whatever you learn within the boundaries of those limited markets, and not try to expand it to "good" or "bad" writing in general.
As you'll see, I've gone approximately two hundred years further back in time to Moll Flanders. Both Of Mice and Men and White Fang are both examples of fiction in the past, which we can compare to fiction in the present. As in my comments on them, I don't think they differ from modern fiction, including my personal opinion, as much as you appear to suggest. I'm not suggesting that one should be an example and the other shouldn't be. I'm suggesting that both are examples, and actually reasonably similar examples. We can talk about how much "good" and "bad" writing depends on the point of view of the reader, which it certainly does. We can also look at how much what is considered "good" and "bad" writing has changed over time. I don't think it has changed that much. Good writing hundreds of years ago appears, to my eyes, to have much more in common with good writing today than good writing today has in common with bad writing today. Of course, that's through my own filters. Debate is seldom about changing people's minds. But debate can be very useful as it makes the participants evaluate other opinions and re-evaluate their own. Why not? When I read published novels it is very rare to find slow narrative progression or excessive detail. In amateur writing, both of these are common. Should I not generalise from this? If not, why not? Discussion such as this gives me more tools to study the markets and fiction that I come across. And the point of this thread, as I understand it, is to ask the question of how much we can expand to talking about "good" and "bad" writing in general. If I see patterns, I generalise from them. If I want to publish - and I do - I can't just rely on my own internal filters; I have to think what editors would like. And they have to think of what their readers would like.
You're using value-laden terms, though. It's rare to find "excessive" detail in published works. Okay. But it's common to find "rich" detail. How do we distinguish between what's "rich" and what's "excessive"? We just look at what works for the story. Similarly, "slow narrative progression" - "slow" is subjective again, right? For my taste, the damn Goldfinch was way too slow, but it got critical acclaim and was a best seller. So obviously lots of people didn't find it slow, or if they did, didn't have a problem with that. I feel like we're just circling around and not getting anywhere, so I think I'm out. Good luck with the publishing!
I would see this entire sample as backstory, and so I don't see it as rapid at all. It's very interesting backstory, and I'm not saying "backstory" as a criticism, but to me we're standing still at the starting gate.
If we are bringing editors into this discussion then I am screwed. I think they should call them editors/critics, seeing as they have the power to say whether a book makes it or not. Here I thought editor meant 'mistake fixer'. Then again look at some of the top selling books in recent history. Seems bad writing is the way to make it big (along with latching on to a particular theme, like glittery vampires and flat not so S/M relationships). So maybe there is a correlation between bad writing and success. But why? That just validates what I said earlier about: How holding a brush makes one a painter, or typing on a keyboard/typewriter makes you a writer. I need an adult, otherwise this will become a loop in impaired logic.
There is no alternative when fiction is concerned. There aren't enough objective ways of evaluating fiction. We have to go into the subjective in order to get anywhere. What is the difference between "rich" and "excessive" detail? One way of measuring that is the "GET ON WITH IT" test. If I read it and find that I'm getting impatient for something to happen, then it's too much. Then there's the "DID I NEED TO KNOW THAT?" test. If the details don't add anything to the narrative: understanding, enjoyment, depth, then they are "excessive" rather than rich. How far into diminishing returns are we. I just read the first few pages ("Look inside") of Goldfinch by Donna Tatt. Is that the one you mean? It doesn't seem slow at first. The first paragraph introduces some mystery - why did the MC leave NYC in a hurry? Particularly since he knows not a word of Dutch: it's an odd place to go. Third paragraph has a description of his room, but I'm interested by then. It adds information about his state of mind in any case. Fourth paragraph and the newspapers have no news of his predicament. OK, that's loading on the drama. Whatever caused him to leave NYC in a hurry is important enough that it made the papers in Holland. What did he do? Off to check the Wikipedia summary as I want to know now. It may get much slower later on. But, the beginning appears taught, with each paragraph having its own role in setting the scene or getting the plot going. Like some other discussions on this forum, I do think we're making progress here. I'm not sure what people want from discussions; people seem to expect them to get somewhere. But like other things, the journey is more important than arriving, IMHO.
It is backstory, but she has led an interesting life which is going to be told in the book. It's not incredibly quick, but my subjective impression is that it doesn't drag. It passes the "GET ON WITH IT" test. Look at how much backstory there is at the start of Robinson Crusoe! "I was born in 1632." Talk about starting at the beginning. Here's the line that finishes the second paragraph, talking about his brother. "What became of my second brother I never knew, any more than my father or mother knew what became of me." Now, that hints at drama to come. Just having that there makes the considerable amount of backstory more palatable, as I know that something big is coming. In some amateur writing, there's backstory or detail with no hint as to what is coming nor why it is worthwhile continuing to read. EDIT: Dan Brown's 20 worst sentences. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/6194031/The-Lost-Symbol-and-The-Da-Vinci-Code-author-Dan-Browns-20-worst-sentences.html
