Wash your mouth out with soap! This instance! Please try again, I urge you. It's a crime for a serious writer to not have read Fyodor D. A crime I tell you! He successfully weaves his philosophy into his narrative without ever explicitly stating it, and does it telling a great story. There's a really great audio version by George Guidall, I'd recommend you give that a try as it will help bring it to life.
"how much abuse will the average reader accept?" That is why I went with "laziness". Why, if we want to build a career as a writer, would we abuse the reader intentionally? Why would we allow any part of our writing to be sub-standard compared to any other part of it? Nobody is going to write perfect prose, because we're all human. But to think there's an 'allowable' amount of deliberate 'imperfection' is, IMHO and as both a writer and a reader, unacceptable. You give every word/paragraph/page/chapter of your writing your best effort.
I'm not so sure about successfully weaving his philosophy into his narrative lol. What's so good about it anyway? I don't think I ever even quite understood what it's about.
Have you read the newest translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky? If not, I'd urge you to give it a try. I read Dostoyevsky in the Slavic translation, and it is one of the most riveting books I ever read. But the English translation that was most prevalent was based on a stuffy Victorian translation and it was horrific, dry, humourless, sapped of all life. These two have done a wonderful job, people who couldn't see what the fuss was all about became avid fans of the work. Apparently, Dumas was butchered in the same way, very worthwhile reading the newer translation.
I'll second the Pevear and Larissa transaltions. I have them all lined up on my bookshelf in Hardback - only special books get that treatment. The audio version I mentioned I'd recommend as well, even though it's the Constance Garnett translation. If you want to learn how to really read properly, listen to that. You'll never skim read again. What's so good about it? Everything. And when you've finished that, you've got the pleasure of his Magnum Opus - The Brothers Karamazov.
I'm assuming that the writer isn't injecting back story and "unnecessary" tangents on purpose; he's doing it because he finds it interesting and thinks it's relevant to the story; readers may disagree of course. If I come across a book that starts off strong but makes me lose interest halfway through, I'll think about why the author chose to go this route and include unnecessary material (IMO). In the meantime, I'll keep reading, especially if the author is someone I typically enjoy reading. If after a few dozen pages I still don't understand why the author did what he did, I'll consider giving up. I should mention that when I stop reading a book, it's rarely the writer's fault. It's usually my own shortcomings that causes me to stop (i.e., the book requires the reader to know a lot about a certain topic and I don't possess that knowledge). Two notable examples are Thomas Mann's Magic Mountain and Proust's In Search of Lost Time. I read about 50 pages of Mann and 100 pages of Proust (which, I might add, is about 4300 pages long) and then gave up. Again, it's my shortcoming in this case, not theirs. Since The Brothers Karamazov was mentioned, I'll use that as an example of a book that some people may quit reading midway through. It's more plot driven in the beginning, but later on, Dostoevsky dedicates entire chapters to philosophical musings that, while pertinent to the novel, don't seem to interest some readers (how anyone can hate the chapter on the Grand Inquisitor I'll never know, but I'll save this rant for another time). I would argue here that it's not Dostoevsky's fault. I completely understand why he chose to include these passages. Another example is Les Miserables, which has a few chapters on topics like the Paris sewer systems. Readers were so disinterested in these chapters that abridged versions of the book were published with the chapters removed. I think only hardcore fans of Hugo will actually read these chapters (I'll admit that I didn't). In this case, you could make the argument that the writer is at fault because these chapter contribute almost nothing to what's happening in the novel.
I think the reader will show patience if the writer has created a world and characters the reader has a vested interest in. The clearer the goal or danger ( what will happen to this character ) or implication of either or the easier it is for the reader to connect and identify with. Take Flowers in the Attic - an exasperating novel and a perfect example. 400 pages long and nothing much happens. But the children are locked in the attic ( interesting world/situation ) and you're wondering when their mother will let them out or if they'll escape. You're drawn to the protagonist - selfish and arrogant Cathy. You're wondering what she'll do. Unfortunately, she doesn't do much of anything but admire herself in a mirror. The book doesn't even bother with flashy action - there are no escape attempts, or rebellions, there isn't even a lot of pulpy abuse. In fact, passages are given to dress descriptions, introspection and monopoly games. The reader has to wait and wait for the horror and incest elements which given the notoriety of the book are a couple of mere hints and a few flimsy passages. So why do they read? Because of the mc her goals - escape, wealth. Her dangers - ever fluctuating from death, rape, mutilation to supreme boredom. I think it also might depend on how one actually tests the readers patience. I could never stand the backstory of Lolita. I didn't mind the bit about Annabel but the set up was a pure backstory no-no. The first paragraph of the novel starts like a teaser - here's what the book is about but hold on while I tell you what happens before Lo. But he's such a good reader and the details so clever he turns a fault into something of interest. I think that's the key - even if something is a false step - if it's interesting then it can work in a funky sort of way.
So, could the real question be: do you as a writer consider your potential readers to be more, less or equally literate as yourself? I see a strong preference towards underestimation of the readership... am I wrong?
@thirdwind raises an interesting point. I think that, once the writing is of high enough quality, we can't judge the writer negatively i. terms of his or her skill, just because they took a different direction with the story than what we would've chosen. If Proust genuinely had 4300 pages worth of things to say, unless there's evidence of poor editing, we can't declare that work overall boring or a failure just because it isn't plot driven. Hugo left a historical record, that was his magnum opus, his choice of what to leave to the future generations. I hope nobody would actually try to argue he was a substandard writer just because he included material that doesn't advance the story. I feel that a lot of these rules have been taken too literally, as if getting published is the only purpose and being hardcore plot driven is the only way to get published. Not so, and there should come a point to wind back and ask, what do I want/need to tell in this book? And then go and tell our story.
One also wonders if the dirrectional drive of how-to write books, and writing sites haven't scared off authors wanting to experiment. If we're shaping more James Patterson's than John Hawkes'.
This is a potentially controversial statement but: I think if a story is strong---really strong---riveting, etc. then a reader will be more inclined to stick with it than if the writing was good. I'm not saying we shouldn't write well. Or that we shouldn't try really hard to make the MS strong throughout, but if you think about recent examples (especially in mass market fiction), the books people buy and salivate over are not the ones (generally) that are beautifully crafted and meticulously worded. They're the ones with the best storylines. In answer to the OP's question (if this is what he meant), I think it's absolutely possible for a book to change pace, loosen up, go off topic, and use all sorts of questionable literary techniques if the story is strong enough to make the reader forgive it. I'm not saying it should be done, and I'm not saying we should aim for the lowest common denominator as a rule (lol), but it is a hard fact that good stories trump good writing 9 times out of 10 in the publishing world. Examples include, of course, books like Twilight and even Fifty Shades, the last installments of which took all kinds of liberties with style (in terms of really bad writing), but people continued to read them regardless. Commentary aside as to what this means socially, clearly the best thing to do is achieve both, if possible. Combine a really great story with really great writing, even if it doesn't happen that often.
None whatsoever. The average reader is fickle and will put a story down at the slightest irritation. I had begun blogging some fiction of mine as a learning exercise. To see what what holds someone's interest and what killed it. My blog started out well and within a few days interest peaked then suddenly died. My mistake? I had introduced an idea then failed to fully capitalise on it right away. Looking at the traffic stats, the idea proved popular, they eagerly return the next day but what they found was not interesting and I lost readership instantly. It's been a good experiment from that point of view. It's taught me that a story must be tight, never ramble or indulge tangents. Such things can kill readership. We must fight for our audience with every paragraph, not even chapter by chapter. Hooking a reader is not the same as sustaining interest in a story for it's full term. I have put aside many a book, even a series where the first book completely engaged me but the second failed me in the first few pages. I believe the sense of buyers remorse can be even greater where the beginning was brilliant but the body failed to deliver. I think as a writer you have to have the view that you are not just selling this story, but everything else you write from this point on as well. You have to prove yourself as master of the craft, not the creator of this one interesting character, or good story.
Story trumps all. And that's what I've been talking about, more than just the "mechanics". But I don't think the writer should get sloppy about either, depending on one to "cover" for the other. A writer should always put their best effort into their work, at whatever level that happens to be. (Hopefully we all keep improving)
Here's what you're up against folks. https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10559965_10152667726242952_8431512935278631476_n.jpg?oh=b4d8d491f62568001978fbbbdc430f08&oe=545B7ED8
I'm going to go ahead and re-state aikoaiko's mention of this being a controversial thing. I personally love Christopher Pike's writing style to the point that even though the story is dull and uninteresting, I find it hard to put the book down. I remember in the starlight crystal novel, even though I found the main character shallow and very teen-like even though she continues to age through the novel, I was truly brought to understand how the character felt and how far she would go to achieve her goals. For me, Christopher Pike is an excellent example of a guy whose stories could stand on their own two feet based on writing style alone.
Two things I wonder... First, how do you reach the level of "I love the story" if bad language, bad word mechanics, bad anything comes in the way? Have you ever tried to listen to a stutterer telling a joke? I don't laugh (and I should, he's telling a joke!) but end up feeling sorry for him. That's just lack of reading hygiene if you ask me. "It's not going to poison me so I don't mind the smell." Well, it's still rotten... Second, where is the brilliant story in Fifty Shades? By "brilliant story" I mean "at least barely enjoyable story", which still needs to include meaningful characterization, and decent plot (if any plot at all). Now, I may be wrong, I never personally got pass chapter 3 (and I do occasionally prefer straight porn to erotica ), but most of the time when I see someone reading those books their eyes are stuck on paragraphs depicting a drop of his sweat on her thighs or something he does with another part of her body... and she sighs in delight...
With all due respect @PensiveQuill I don't think you can compare a few blog posts by an unpublished writer and a finished and published novel the reader is holding in their hands. Also, as an avid and discerning reader, I would disagree that the reader puts the book down at the 'slightest irritation'. I think slight irritations are extremely common in readers, and only if they have no motivation to turn the next page, such as that they fail to engage with the characters or couldn't care less about the story, do they fail to finish a book. It is physically impossible to maintain equal level of 'engaging' or a 'hook' with every paragraph, sentence (word! letter! I've seen how-to books claim this and it's comical). Sometimes a character needs to cross the road, or ask for a cappuccino, or maybe they are being in big denial, so much so that the reader is frustrated with them. If all these reactions are deliberately caused by the writer, it's the essence of guiding the reader through a journey of our story. The problem only arises if we intended the reader to be amused and they are bored, or worried and they are laughing, or sympathetic and they are irritated. @Burlbird : Just like female arousal is different than male, so is female erotica. We feel very intense sensations at the mere touch of the inside of our arm, our whole bodies are an erogenous zone, and even the slightest touch can be electrifying (in fact, gentle is often preferred to hard and fast, although that too has its place). So don't judge Joking aside, I read all three 50 Shades books, and I did so only to find out what happened with the subplot story, the stalker and all that. Sex scenes became repetitive the relationship too whiney, I ended up skipping large chunks and wishing she could just skip the 'relationship' part and get on with the mystery. But I stuck it out 'till the end because the story was engaging and I had to know how it ended. I wouldn't call it 'brilliant' unless I'm referring to the massive following and the profits, in which case it is worthy of a Nobel Prize for Commercial Literature. Along with Harry Potter and Dan Brown books.
This is an excellent example of what I mean. Both Humbert Humbert's intro and the preceding one are stellar, and then, suddenly, we're learning the intricate details of his mixed heritage and about his spoiled childhood in the Riviera. I don't for a second believe Nabokov made a mistake-the layout was obviously very intentional. Suck the readers in quickly, and then go ahead and piss them off for the amusement of the narrator (and maybe Nabokov's too?) During the beginning of the back story Humbert even says " if you can still stand my style ." If anything, I would say the back story, in addition to any other intended purposes, serves as a sort of higher level joke. Screwing with the reader is the opposite of being lazy. It's being bold and its being different. Sometimes the value of something isn't obvious, but it still may very well be integral to the work as a whole. The question really is whether to save those bits till after you've demonstrated to the reader that they are for certain going to like your book, and how often you can get away with using those bits.
@jazzabel Oh I don't judge, it's just an evil grin On a serious side, I did found a few literate passages in that little of Shades that I have read, so there might be more into it, but the point is: readership in general wouldn't mind a complete lack of plot and a slightly less literate writing, as long as some other of their needs are met. Which is really okay, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having all kinds of literature, all kinds of genres and the whole range of quality. And you can find a good purpose for any book, that's what my grandma taught me: make you look smart if you have a load of them on the shelves even if you don't read them But... Go to any forum on the web dedicated to amateur film-making. Would you give an advice to a fledging director, actor or a scriptwriter along the lines of "if your film doesn't make a load of cash on the box-office, you are just not working hard enough"? Or: "You should really look at the [insert the last superhero movie] - if your team can't make that kind of special effects and you can't hire Natalie Portman, you really shouldn't bother with your camera"? Or, imagine a film critic saying "This film is a badly edited, plotless, motionless two-hour yawn, but it made a load of cash so I'm giving it 5 stars because there most be something great about it!" For some reason that I really cannot comprehend, writing forums (not just this one) are filled with this kind of thinking. The measure of succes for the amateur writing world, the world of struggling, fledging authors, seems to be the number of sold copies (we are mostly talking about people who are yet to sell a single copy of their work). Now, it's one thing to learn from best-selling books by dissecting them, finding out what you like about them, what you hate, how things work... you do that with a frog to find out about anatomy, right? But thinking that there must be something perfect about them (best-sellers or frogs), otherwise the editors, publishers and readership wouldn't ever bother with them... That's just a bit silly.
@123456789 : I agree! I think Nabokov employed that, among other techniques, to convey the deeply passive-aggressive personality that Humber has, the wilful delusion and denial he hides behind, which is why the style becomes uncomfortable. He's repulsive yet he pulls you in with all the beautiful descriptions of places and emotions, the humour, the cynicism, he demonstrates to you how it feels to be so drawn to something so wrong. After all, he is appealing to you, the reader, to hear him out and understand him. In the beginning, Lolita is a sob story of an imprisoned paedophile, last ditch attempt to clear his reputation, to bamboozle the spectator, to prove his innocence. Only in the course of the narrative he faces the monster inside, again, this is very much 'off stage' but the reader notices when his honesty breaks through, when the masks fall so to say, and the book ends on an honest note. He has such a strange and incredible style, I wrote a poem after 'Lolita', I just finished it and needed to hang onto it a while longer, and it's completely different from the way I normally write, but it works. And you are right, it is boldly taking the style by the horns and making it do what you really need, rather than somehow skirting around. It's difficult to explain. @Burlbird : Haha, yes, buying the red leather bound ones by a meter, or a kilo! But this all comes down to two things - what is the definition of success and quality. In the world we live in, success is absolutely measured by copies sold, but for me, on a deeper level, success of a writer is also measured by how many people read and like your book. Purely because, the chief task of a writer is to successfully communicate their story to a reader, and based on that, JK Rowling, Stephanie Meyer and EL James are successful writers and there must be something good about their books (never said perfect ) namely, the fact they successfully communicated. Now, I might have something profound to say about the Universe, or relationships or human condition in my story, and my success as a writer will be measured by how many people will read and like that. This is where 'copies sold' isn't the only measure, but even for a higher brow literature, that will have ten times less readers than 50 Shades, still there will be an admirable number of copies sold, hence, the success is undeniable. Quality, on the other hand is much harder to define. Quality is aesthetically pleasing, it works, it has a purpose. Also, most people (and I'm sure animals) have inborn instinct toward quality. Much has been written about all this, from the biological, psychological and philosophical perspective, and I don't think there's a consensus. But I wonder whether the sheer amount of interest and affection for something testifies to it's inherent quality. It's arguable.
