I never ever read a book if the ideas/characters don’t interest me. Really good writing is pointless if the story is clichéd/boring/thoughtless/otherwise bad. (Btw, even if the story is clichéd, but with an interesting spin, would that be good ideas rather than good writing?) Anyway, even though I won’t read a book with no good idea, I’ll read a book with bad writing. Though, by read, I mean flick through at a bookstore and not buy (so your atrocious writing wont be getting anything from me, ha!) I personally think the ideas are more important. (good ideas, not just any random ‘my cat is evil’ type one)
Good ideas are important - but that comes before the actual writing. What consists of a "good idea" though? Here are some criteria off the top of my head: 1) Fresh things 2) Fresh looks at old things 3) Significant things Consider 1984 - it addressed deep dark fears about humanity. Even though I couldn't stand the way it was written and gave up after 4 pages. Consider Ender's Game - again it addresses something insideous and devious about human nature in a manner that is rarely done. I gave up on that one after about 60 pages because it seemed like it was written for 12 year olds. Atlas Shrugged also takes a unique look at political intrigue with the concept of "Prime Movers". Once again, I gave up on this one because I couldn't stand how it was written. I was able to finish Jonathan Livingston, Seagull in an afternoon though... LOL
It's entirely possible to have a novel that is read just for its brilliant prose. I've done it, because I'm a writer and I want to learn how to write like that. (I know, keep dreaming. ;_; ) But there isn't a book without some idea, regardless of how vague or nebulous it might be. David Lynch, a movie director with art cred and virtually zero audience, once said he envied Spielberg. He and Spielberg were doing the exact same thing, pursuing ideas that they had passion for. It was just that Spielberg's vision hit a nerve with the masses, and Lynch's did not. I think in the same way, writers like King just write, and what they write happens to resonate with people. So, you see, um...I'm sure I was going somewhere with this. I guess my point is yes, you can put together a bunch of beautiful metaphors and images and people will read it. But it's like having the most gorgeous furniture ever, and no house. Get the house, then you can put the furniture in it. That's an awful metaphor, but it's kind of what I'm going for.
I think my jaw is dislocated...its never dropped so far in my life... Orwell's writing is nothing short of exceptional, and not in an assy pretentious I'm-above-using-real-grammar kinda way, but a wow-this-is-really-simple-yet-deep-and-complex kinda way. I'd urge you to try again, cuz 4 pages doesn't even come close to letting you understand that book. //end rant, back to topic.
Perhaps it's all just a matter of taste. I liked George Orwell's 1984, but I didn't find it a life-changing experience. It was well-written, but I can say that about a lot of books. The Da Vinci Code also makes some of the "top 100 books." I think that was also well written, and I personally think I enjoyed it a little bit more than I enjoyed 1984. There are those on these boards who consider The Da Vinci Code "pedestrian" and 1984 "phenomenal." To give both authors credit where due, they've both done something most of us in this discussion haven't done: gotten their books published, and received enough popularity to make their books well known. I doubt any of us has written a book more famous than either of these two books. I don't think anyone can do that without being a pretty decent writer. I don't consider myself a genius, and I certainly don't have my nose in the air, with snobbery towards certain styles. There are those who would consider both the Da Vinci Code and 1984 to be below them, being lowly books of the common man, suspense and science fiction ( ::hmph!:: ), hardly the artsy sort of books that the genteel upper-class dainty sorts would read. I'm not like that. I'm not "above it all." I'm just a regular guy, who likes to read. I do like specific information, though, about what people like and don't like, as I think it helps hone everyone's thinking and can help us all to be better writers as well as better readers. I read things here like: "I couldn't stand the way it was written" "He is not a talented author." "he is pedestrian. His fiction is just like "blah" Now, it may be simple matters of taste. Sometimes, you don't like something, and you don't know why you don't like it. I'd be more interested in knowing specifics, though. I've said, for example, regarding one book, "the ending was atrociously unbelievable." I could go further, in plot details, and point out how ludicrous it is for a character to fall out of a helicopter and survive by using a piece of cardboard as a parachute. Okay, you couldn't stand the way 1984 was written... is it possible for you to elaborate on this? What about it couldn't you stand? Did you find the writing wordy? The sentences too complicated, or not varied enough? To the person who find Dan Brown "pedestrian"... can you state, specifically, what makes him "pedestrian"? You say, "its not exactly like they're the next Barker, Burroughs, or Heinlein." Well, what's so special about Barker, Burroughs or Heinlein? Frankly, I'm not a fan of Heinlein. I enjoy Dan Brown's works and am quite glad he's not a Heinlein, having read Starship Troopers, which I found to be too heavy, militaristic, and propagandist... and a war with outer-space bugs is, in my opinion, a "pedestrian" idea, if we must use such a description. I think it's quite convenient for your villains to be bugs -- then your reader need not have empathy for them. Nor did I find it to be the page-turner that Dan Brown's books are... even his worst book, Digital Fortress, I found more suspenseful and intriguing than Starship Troopers! Charlie
I have considered trying 1984 again because I was impressed by the introspective nature of the first few pages with whatsisname writing furiously in that corner which the monitor couldn't see him. It was for school and in that same year I managed to read Things Fall Apart in one afternoon yet I couldn't stomach 1984. I think i have to have that human interaction in stories that I read otherwise my brain just gets bored. There was no human interaction in the first several pages of 1984 so it became a chore to read rather than a pleasure. Also, I am very naturally sensitive and empathic which led to many emotional problems earlier in life - and that trait extends into reading. If I read something colored by a specific emotion, that emotion becomes real for me. The feverish intensity at the beginning of 1984 was very overwhelming to me at the time. When I read the second book in the Twilight series - Bella is simply whining and moping for about 100 pages. Even though I didn't really care about her emotional state I still found myself in a foul mood after reading in those sections. ~~~ I should note that I am what some would call "ADHD" - my brain is highly energetic and I need lots of stimulation otherwise I get bored. This is considered an "impairment" by the masses. One of the lesser known symptoms of ADHD is greater empathy, which in turn caused me to be more introverted - the outside world was too overwhelming.
Not to dwell on the Dan Brown vs. King idea, but I would challenge anyone to listen to a Dan Brown novel on tape... it is HORRIBLE. I have read several of his books and his ideas are interesting, though I do have a problem that people can't seem to understand the meaning of "fiction". My theory is that avid readers just skip over the bad parts when they are reading a Brown novel... which you can't do when it is a book on tape. King, on the other hand, while he has trouble with endings and writing women, has really developed as a writer. Bag of Bones is excellent. He does need a better editor though... Just to respond to the "pedestrian" comment... Dan Brown's character development is terrible. He introduces each character with a description... in other words he "tells" everything and "shows" very little. Now someone might argue, but he is not trying to write a deep novel with deep characters, but a plot driven novel, and they would be right, but that does not make it good writing. Religion is a hot button issue with many people and unfortunately most are not as educated as they should be, so what are glaring errors to some are easily overlooked by others.
In addition to having read all his books in hardcover, I listened to the Da Vinci Code and Deception Point on CD. I found them to be quite enjoyable. Can you tell me specifically what was "horrible" about them? Is it too much to ask for specifics? Charlie
I don't think it is an either/or kind of situation. A writer needs both skill and ideas. One without the other just makes for a unreadable story. To me the presentation of the ideas; the writing, the language, the characters, and plots and subplots, all support the overall piece. Ideas are a dime a dozen. Great ideas only strike once in a while. A skillful ability to write is acquired over years of practice and learning. Are there writers out there who have been published that lack some of these things? Yes, because no one said publishing house editors are all brilliant either. Some of them push through and promote not so good writing or ideas, because there was just something they liked. Each editor and publishing house executive has their own ideas of what is good and what is bad, but they aren't perfect. As for Dan Brown. I read Di Vinci Code...and it was pretty good. There were some spots, like the explanation point between the MC his know-it-all friend and the girl. It was one of those info dump segments. Some of the dialog was trite. But overall the action adventure was enough to keep me turning the pages. Will I be reading it again? No. For me the desire to read something again and again is the indication of a great book. Like Lord of the Rings. That series gets read every few years. Mists of Avalon (one of my favorites) gets read every few years. I have a few choice books that I will always enjoy reading. The writing doesn't have to be perfect, which I find funny, because I am able to forgive the author of a few little mistakes here and there. I don't like comparing one author against another, because each is different. What makes one book great might not work for another book. What makes one author's style fantastic, might not be anyone else's style. It's all subjective. Just like beauty.
So sorry... limited time, I picked the quick and easy response and deferred the other (yours.) My time is still limited, so I need to be brief... It's been a few years since my reading of 1984, and I admit, I don't recall the opening sequence. But I liked your explanations about human interaction... although, personally, that's never been an issue for me. In fact, one of the better Stephen King novels in recent years, "The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon," literally had no human interaction at all -- it was about a girl, by herself, lost in the woods -- but I found it to be very moving, much more easy to relate to than 1984. What I didn't like in 1984 was this: There was a sequence where the main characters were getting questioned, and they said they'd kill a child for the cause. I'm thinking, if I were in their shoes, I'd say, "There's a lot I'd do for the cause, but I still have integrity." It seemed as though, if they weren't letting Big Brother control them, they were letting Big Brother's enemies control them, and, though I think that was part of the point, I was glad that the statement bit them in the end. I would have preferred more heroic heroes, however, who were willing to think for themselves, and not let Big Brother or the enemies of Big Brother control their thinking. I never read any Twilight sequels, so I can't comment there. I did read the first one. Twilight seems to have been written for a target audience (preteen girls) from which I'm excluded on two counts. More later.... Charlie
it is sad when the average emotional maturity level is that of such young people... (about the Twilight thing) That is one thing that I've struggled with - what age bracket am I catering too? It's obvious that many Westerners have very low levels of emotional maturity - but that illusion may simply be because immature people get more attention.
There's nothing wrong with a book catering to a particular audience. That's why, on television, we have Hanna Montana and we also have the Discovery Channel. I try to read a wide variety of books, if only to help me in my writing, so I sometimes do read books written for other audiences. What age bracket are you catering to? I don't know, I suppose it depends on the stories you want to write. I don't share your views of the emotional maturity of Westerners. I see everyone as individual, and pass no judgment on the emotional maturity of others. We all have our own experiences, our own troubles, and any glimpse I see of another person is a snapshot in time. I myself have experienced moments in my life when I've shown maturity far beyond my years, and moments when I've shown myself to be a babe whose eyes haven't yet opened. Charlie
I'll echo Charlie's request for specifics. As aspiring writers, we should be able to say what exactly we liked or disliked about a piece. This is the purpose of the review room. . . to help us define good writing, and apply those thoughts to our own work. This is why writing a review can be more beneficial than receiving one. Labeling a book or style "pedestrian" doesn't say much. It gives the impression that the writing is beneath you because it appeals to the "common man." I don't think that's what you meant to say. Again, as writers, we should be able to express ourselves better than that. To anyone posting here: please explain your point! I think if you can't explain it, you don't have a point. As for ideas vs writing ability: Ideas are important in the same way that breathing is important. You're screwed if you can't breath, but is it really praise worthy? There are books on breathing technique, believe it or not. Those exceptional techniques can improve your health; those are praise worthy. It is rare for a person to employ those techniques, and we get by just fine without them. Still, it's worth learning how to breath 'better' if it helps you. The most common examples of brilliance in this area, like Star Wars, are really just a collection of cliched or oft-used storylines and concepts taken from other sources. What makes it work is the script (or writing), first and foremost, and also the unique combination of common ideas/themes. What most people see as creative brilliance is really most often just skillful recycling. It doesn't take a lot of creativity to put this stuff together, but rather an adept understanding of what constitutes a good story. George Lucas understands storytelling; he's not a creative genius. You could write a fantastic story, something that others will praise as a work of creative genius, simply by studying other works within your genre, and utilising the best elements from a variety of sources. Understand what works and what doesn't. This takes more of an analytical mind than a creative one. The books that sell primarily for the ideas contained within are quite rare, and most often, the ideas don't even belong to the author! Usually, the ideas have been around forever.
Seta, as an American, I find this comment pertaining to emotional maturity a rather narrow minded generalization that is likely to be somewhat offensive to those of us who have maturity levels beyond that of a flea. While I agree that there are a lot of dumb, emotionally handicapped Americans out there (because really that is what Westerners refers to -- no one talks about Mexico or South America in the way) I'm sure not all Europeans or Asians, or Aussies are emotionally enlightened either. The ratios are probably about the same. It's just that is the way Americans are portrayed to the rest of the world for the past 50 years. Twilight was all about the teenage drama. The self absorbed, immature behavior of an obsessive-compulsive teenage girl. It was rather annoying to read. While I didn't hate the books, as an almost 30 year old woman, I did find it annoying and wanted to slap the daylights out of Bella more times than I could count. But really is there much of a difference between the drama portrayed in Twilight as there is in say Virginia Woolf's novels? Drama is drama is drama. To have drama you have to have emotionally challenged characters, otherwise there is nothing for them to learn and have a character arc. Young people in general are emotionally immature, because they are self absorbed. The world doesn't extend beyond their little narrow scope of the world immediately around them. They don't think about others, they think about how things are for them. As some people grow up, they change and realize the world isn't all about them. Self control is achieved and the self absorbed behavior is replaced by a larger world view. Who are you writing for? I have no idea who your writing for, but yes, our target audience does influence our writing just a little bit. Writing for a teen needs to have something they can relate to. Writing for an adult will be somewhat different. And small children will be even more different still. We have to think about how we will be marketed and who are demographics will be. But that usually comes after the story is written. I just write. I don't worry about that ahead of time. Some stories are meant for younger audiences and some aren't. Edit: I agree with Kas^
Seta, as an American, I find this comment pertaining to emotional maturity a rather narrow minded generalization Do you think I'm not American? I didn't speak about England or France or Australia specifically because I've never been to those places. All I can speak about is the people I meet and encounter here in America. There are different types of maturity. Many of the people I work with seem to be fairly mature in many ways. Of course I work in insurance which is old-fashioned and conservative and thus caters to a more mature work force. However, I have to say that I have been horribly disappointed by the maturity level I have encountered at other workplaces. It reminded of my freshman year of highschool - just that the people were 30+ years old. Also, my word choice was very careful. I said "many", not "most". ~~~ Also, I wished to imply that the popularity of things such as Twilight and Harry Potter - which cater to less mature people - indicates the average maturity of many readers. Granted having read Twilight, what does that say about me? LOL. I read for the other characters.
Actually, although Twilight is popular almost exclusively with teenage girls, Harry Potter is popular with folks of all ages, including me. Because, IMHO, Harry Potter was superbly written, and was written for a broader appeal than Twilight was. There ain't no shame in liking Harry Potter... As for the maturity thing: I think, with time, you may reflect on the maturity matter, and you may reevaluate your viewpoint. People are not always as they appear. There are underlying factors conditioning their responses, that which we see of each person is but a moment in a long, complex journey... I'm sometimes amazed at the remarkable maturity of a child, the remarkable immaturity of an older person, but even more often, I'm amazed, at how, when I get to know more details about an individual, the initial impressions of the person are so very, very wrong. Charlie
Sorry Seta, it was just the way you worded it, I read more into it than was meant to be there. I do understand that about workplaces. I've worked in everything from large ski resort travel agencies, to retail, and most places felt like a replay of high school. My hubby works at Walmart, in management, and he said it's the same way there, like high school. I do agree that many adults, the ones who are supposed to be mature, never get out of the high school mentality. And it is really, really frustrating to deal with these types of people. That's why I refuse to work for anyone but me.
I'm always worried about this skill vs. ideas thing. Sometimes I wonder if I'm just a person who has something to say but has no real talent to put it down in words.
You will if you're willing to put in the effort, and study effectively. It will probably take years to knock your writing into shape and get it published. And you should be prepared for that. We all have a long row to hoe, even those with a natural gift for communication. But we all have ideas, and good writing can be learned. It just requires a monumental effort in comparison to most other jobs, with small chance of proportionate payoff.
Yeah, thanks...I am beginning to realize that it does get easier the more you do it. It also takes time. A lot of time. I don't know how guys like SK do it...seemingly writing several books a year or two.
I'm glad we got the maturity thing cleared up. I have actually started watching the Harry Potter movies. I go through phases of reading. Every couple of years or so I will read about 40 books in a few months and then nothing for a year. I'm out of my reading phase, so Harry Potter will have to stay shelved.
Excuse my post, not sure if it is in the correct forum, but I have too many story ideas swimming around in my head, and cannot get them all on paper fast enough, so can't write anything at all, it seems! Totally overwhelmed. How to deal with overload on the ideas front? I just came up with a beautiful plot twist for the ending of my book, which would actually, as it turns out, lead beautifully into the possibility of a sequel if I so chose to want to do it, but there is so much new stuff going on, and I wrote all the basics of it down so I won't lose it.. but for the first time, the ideas of the basis for another book has come into my head, and my head doesn't know which to think about now! I did also write down the new story ideas, trying not to stay on it too long, though it doesn't seem to matter how long I stayed on it, my subconscious seems to have adopted it as a new task as well! With this new plot twist for my current story though, I also have to go back and edit a few things in the story I have written, so I have a lot to do all of a sudden. It has all come to me within 24 hours, and have been unable to write anything for the 2 days since I came up with all of it just due to the pure excitement of how well it is all fitting together and how much I feel like I have to do now! OMG So I apologize if this is in the wrong forum or whatever, but I needed to vent somehow, maybe ask for advice from others on how they handle such situations? Because I know I have seen others say they work on multiple stories at a time, and I have no clue how you can keep them all separate in your heads. I don't seem to be able to work that way... working better with all my focus on one story is almost too much for me when I come up with so much info for the story at once. Thanks
Don't force yourself to stay focused on one project, write what you feel like writing, at least in the short term. Eventually the excitement will wear off and you wont feel the urge to do all projects at once. When this happens pick your favorite story and continue with it. Hope that helps.
I agree with Twisted. Its probably best to write what you feel like writing at the time. I have also had these mysterious bouts of simultaneous story inspiration where i didn't know what to do with all the ideas i had swirling in my head. In the end i would become so confused and not write anything leading to a dangerous spell of writers block or in my case, procrastination. But yeah, just write. It's better to write something when you have the ideas than having nothing to look at when the inspiration's scarce.
