Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 13:35:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 10:35:22 GMT
Dear Authors,
Did you all get together at some "How Not to be a Hack" Convention, and agree that the Rules of Great Writing are:
a.) Never, under any circumstances, tell a story from only one person's perspective; and
b.) At all costs, avoid chronological order. Jump back and forth in time, preferably every other chapter.
I just finished, "The Son," and it was probably the fifth book in a row where I almost hurled it across the room in frustration because it adhered slavishly to rules a and b. I think it MIGHT have been a great book, if I had the slightest idea who was who, or how they related to each other, or could keep the timeline straight.
Also - and here I believe I am speaking to a different audience of authors, who do not strive for Great Writing - not every freaking book needs to be part of a series or trilogy! Just try to write ONE book that is good, or even decent.
Yours Truly,
Faithful Reader
|
|
|
|
Post by auntkelly on Jun 1, 2016 11:23:33 GMT
I agree that it was sometimes hard to follow the relationships of the characters in The Son but I really loved that book.
It does seem like every book now has to have multiple generations telling the tale, and the author skip back and forth in time. Some books just don't need to be that grand and some authors just can't carry it off very well.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 13:35:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 11:27:55 GMT
I agree that it was sometimes hard to follow the relationships of the characters in The Son but I really loved that book. I read it on Kindle...I read somewhere that in the physical books there was a family tree, which would have helped a LOT. I did think it was a very good book, I just disliked the structure and I think it detracted rather than enhanced. The parts about Eli living with the Cherokee were my favorite. |
|
MsKnit
Pearl Clutcher
RefuPea #1406
Posts: 2,648
Jun 26, 2014 19:06:42 GMT
|
Post by MsKnit on Jun 1, 2016 11:32:22 GMT
Interesting. I haven't noticed those issues just yet. though, The Son is on my Kindle waiting to be read.
I'm trying to remember what my Prof said about the trilogies. It's totally a marketing ploy though. Someone had success with a legitimate trilogy. The book sellers saw a way to make money with them and now we have all these trilogies.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 13:35:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 11:34:21 GMT
Exactly, that's why I dislike them so much. It's not about great writing, it's about someone trying to cash in with the next Hunger Games or 50 Shades of Gray. |
|
|
|
Post by auntkelly on Jun 1, 2016 12:12:24 GMT
Interesting. I haven't noticed those issues just yet. though, The Son is on my Kindle waiting to be read. I'm trying to remember what my Prof said about the trilogies. It's totally a marketing ploy though. Someone had success with a legitimate trilogy. The book sellers saw a way to make money with them and now we have all these trilogies. Trilogies do seem to be so commercial in most cases, especially when the first book is not complete within itself and the ending of the first book leaves you hanging so that you have to read the next book to find out what happens to the character. I really think you have to be a great writer like J.R.R. Tolkien to pull off a trilogy. I also don't like how so many books now are told from a multi-generational point of view. James Mitchner wrote a lot of multi-generational books in the seventies, but he was a good author and pulled it off well, in my opinion. I don't think most authors are as talented as James Mitchner and shouldn't try to write the multi-generational tale. I especially don't like it when I read a multi-generational story and the characters from past generations hold completely modern values that just don't ring true to the times in which they were living. |
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,648 
Location: The Grand Canyon
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Jun 1, 2016 13:33:18 GMT
Split time narratives have definitely been popular in recent years and I think their effectiveness varies. I think Kate Morton has used them well, but as much as I love her books, I got tired of them because she does it in every book. Susanna Kearsley is an author I wish would ditch the device; I think her modern stories get in the way of her historical stories and I wish she would just write straight up historical novels. I don't mind stories told from different perspectives. But if you do it, you better have distinct and developed voices for the different characters. One of the worst books I've read is Insurgent (the final book in the dreaded trilogy) and 99% of the time I started reading a chapter and had no idea who it was. ETA: I think trilogies have been overdone too. Most of them follow a pattern, which is predictable and boring. I discovered I should just read the first book, then if I want to find out what happens, just read the wikipedia pages for the following books.  A recent exception for me was the Red Rising trilogy. I thought it was well done and really enjoyed it. I also really liked the Daughter of Smoke and Bone trilogy. I'm awaiting the follow on books to Flight of the Silvers - loved that book and I hope the other books (not sure how many books are planned) are just as good. |
|
|
|
Post by peano on Jun 1, 2016 14:31:45 GMT
I hear you. I'm currently reading The Girl On The Train, which also adheres to both A and B. I'm finally into the book, but it really put me off initially.
|
|
|
|
Post by rst on Jun 1, 2016 15:05:46 GMT
Two recent rants:
please stop using "pad" or "padding" as a verb done in bare feet. It grates on my nerves and is just unnatural use of language.
and
How about a title that does not fit the tired old "THe ____'s daughter/wife/concubine/niece" ?
|
|
|
|
Post by colleen on Jun 1, 2016 17:10:59 GMT
From a writer's point of view -- there are totally fads in writing, just like in fashion. It's that simple, and that annoying. The trilogy comment is particularly interesting to me because with the trend (actually, it's practically a necessity now) toward self-publication, the accepted wisdom is that new authors need to put up at least three books to attract readers. Interesting to see that there may be some backlash.
|
|
|
|
Post by craftedbys on Jun 1, 2016 17:19:38 GMT
And please stop taking 300+ pages to get to the exciting climax/confrontation/battle scene and then wrap the book in a page and a half leaving the reader to flip pages wondering where the rest of the story is or scratching their heads going "huh?"
I don't expect every little thing in a story wrapped up in a neat bow at the wnd, but I get tired of investing time into a story only to feel like I've been dropped off a cliff at the end.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 13:35:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 17:25:07 GMT
I am sooooooooooo(x 100) over the multi book series.
|
|
marianne
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys. . . My monkeys fly!
Posts: 4,176
Location: right smack dab in the middle of SC
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2014 21:08:26 GMT
|
Post by marianne on Jun 1, 2016 17:28:35 GMT
not every freaking book needs to be part of a series or trilogy! Just try to write ONE book that is good, or even decent. This really bears repeating!! Just write a good book! |
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,648
Location: The Grand Canyon
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Jun 1, 2016 17:53:45 GMT
not every freaking book needs to be part of a series or trilogy! Just try to write ONE book that is good, or even decent. This really bears repeating!! Just write a good book! I read Uprooted last year and loved it. One thing I loved about it is that it was a standalone book, which seems rare in the genre markets (it's a fantasy book). It's nice to read book like that and have closure, although it seemed she left the door open a tiny crack for potential sequels, but in no way would they be necessary. |
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,648
Location: The Grand Canyon
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Jun 1, 2016 17:55:28 GMT
From a writer's point of view -- there are totally fads in writing, just like in fashion. It's that simple, and that annoying. The trilogy comment is particularly interesting to me because with the trend (actually, it's practically a necessity now) toward self-publication, the accepted wisdom is that new authors need to put up at least three books to attract readers. Interesting to see that there may be some backlash. I don't have inherent objections to trilogies as long as it's a story that is worth telling over three books, which is definitely not the case every time. And as I get older I find trilogies/series harder because I forget so much in between books. |
|
marianne
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys. . . My monkeys fly!
Posts: 4,176
Location: right smack dab in the middle of SC
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2014 21:08:26 GMT
|
Post by marianne on Jun 1, 2016 18:11:38 GMT
And as I get older I find trilogies/series harder because I forget so much in between books. That's me! I have so many series going, I'm forgetting who's who or where they belong. I mostly read the mystery/crime genre, and it seems no one can just write a complete book anymore. The main reason I joined Goodreads was to keep track of my series! |
|
NoWomanNoCry
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,856
|
Post by NoWomanNoCry on Jun 1, 2016 18:28:29 GMT
See I don't like a lot of jumping back and forth.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 13:35:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 19:38:12 GMT
I work with self-published authors and am about to be one myself (though starting with non-fiction). The party line these days is definitely to write at least 3 books and not only that but to have 3 ready to go before you publish any of them. This is based on what readers are asking for/demanding. Regular, everyday people are making a living as writers (who used to be stuck in a cubical working for The Man) and I think that's awesome! I fully support the business model and it's based on what sells so the majority of readers must like series'  I understand the point about not writing 3 books if the story is not good enough to carry them though. On the other hand, if a book and characters ARE good, wouldn't you rather have 3 books to read? Many times, I get attached to a character and I'm sad there's only one book. |
|
|
|
Post by smokeynspike on Jun 1, 2016 19:45:30 GMT
See, I don't mind trilogies in and of themselves. What I mind is having to wait a year in between each book so by the time the next one comes out, I don't remember the details, only the major arc. I've read 50 books in between them!
Melissa
|
|
perumbula
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,439
Location: Idaho
|
Post by perumbula on Jun 1, 2016 19:58:03 GMT
I don't mind trilogies if the plot really supports that much writing. Some of my favorite books have been part of a series. I absolutely hate it when authors start padding the plot and stretching things out with random completely unbelievable plot twits just so they can sell another book. I will say I prefer a series that has a new plot for every book but revisits the same characters. Terry Pratchett did this beautifully. My first series love was Anne of Green Gables. Eight books to enjoy and not a one of them had a cliff hanger!
I'm glad to see the trend to write everything in first person is dying out. It just feels so unnatural to me and takes me out of the book. It's not happening as I'm reading it. Stop pretending.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 13:35:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 20:05:21 GMT
See, I don't mind trilogies in and of themselves. What I mind is having to wait a year in between each book so by the time the next one comes out, I don't remember the details, only the major arc. I've read 50 books in between them! Melissa Exactly! I think a lot of readers feel that way, Melissa. So the prevailing advice I hear these days is to have at least 2-3 books ready to go and publish them all at once. If the first book is good, readers want the next one or two immediately. We used to be conditioned to wait FOR-E-VER for the next book (a la Harry Potter) but readers are much more demanding now. They can talk directly to authors and make their wants (NEEDS, lol) known and authors are responding. As a first-time author, it's frustrating to be told, "Yeah, I know you have a book ready now but go spend 6-12 months writing 2 more before you hit publish." But that's how you make fans happy and engaged and "build a platform" which is what authors are told they need to succeed now. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 13:35:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 20:54:09 GMT
This is based on what readers are asking for/demanding. Regular, everyday people are making a living as writers (who used to be stuck in a cubical working for The Man) and I think that's awesome! I fully support the business model and it's based on what sells so the majority of readers must like series' Truthfully this is not great news for people who love literature. It's just another example of the dumbing down of the world. I'm not saying that it's impossible for "everyday people" to occasionally be excellent writers. But just because a book sells, it doesn't mean it's not a steaming pile of crap. |
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,648
Location: The Grand Canyon
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Jun 1, 2016 21:16:33 GMT
I work with self-published authors and am about to be one myself (though starting with non-fiction). The party line these days is definitely to write at least 3 books and not only that but to have 3 ready to go before you publish any of them. This is based on what readers are asking for/demanding. Regular, everyday people are making a living as writers (who used to be stuck in a cubical working for The Man) and I think that's awesome! I fully support the business model and it's based on what sells so the majority of readers must like series' I understand the point about not writing 3 books if the story is not good enough to carry them though. On the other hand, if a book and characters ARE good, wouldn't you rather have 3 books to read? Many times, I get attached to a character and I'm sad there's only one book. To me there's a difference between a trilogy where all three books are necessary for the story and a series that has books that are more standalone, but revisit the same characters and has some continuity in story. I think the best series are ones where each book has it's own story that has a natural arc to a conclusion, but also contains elements of a story that arcs over the whole series and continues to develop and flesh out the characters. For me, excellent examples of this are: Jo Nesbo's Harry Hole series (excepting the first book), CS Harris's Sebastian St. Cyr series, Karin Slaughter's Will Trent series, and of course Harry Potter. And I think Sue Grafton's Kinsey Milhone series has done a good job of this near the end. In the end, I don't care how many books are written - one standalone, a trilogy, a series - as long as the writing, stories, and characters support the number of books and it's good reading. I think it's interesting that the current model has writers having to write/submit at least three books before getting published. I'm guessing that's more for self-published or genres? |
|
Mystie
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,300
|
Post by Mystie on Jun 1, 2016 22:50:19 GMT
You made me laugh, and I completely agree with you about points A and B, and also about the dang trilogies. I plowed through The Passage several years ago, not realizing it was the first in a trilogy and ended on a cliffhanger. That book was a damn doorstop! There was no way I wanted to have to re-read it to catch back up with the story when number two and number three came out. So that was the end of that.
I am also really tired of reading books written in the present tense. And historical characters with modern values and speech.
|
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Jun 1, 2016 23:08:02 GMT
I am intimidated by series. For many reasons. If it's recently published, I don't want to wait for the other books. It is a LOT of pages! I know, I'm a wimp. I've finally started reading the Harry Potter series because I knew when they first came out, I would be annoyed until the final one was written! I also like to read different genres. Do I really want to read 8 books in a row about fantasy? Three books in a row that's distopian? If I don't read them together, I will forget.
I do get tired of the back and forth jumping of characters and places.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 13:35:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 23:19:38 GMT
This is based on what readers are asking for/demanding. Regular, everyday people are making a living as writers (who used to be stuck in a cubical working for The Man) and I think that's awesome! I fully support the business model and it's based on what sells so the majority of readers must like series' Truthfully this is not great news for people who love literature. It's just another example of the dumbing down of the world. I'm not saying that it's impossible for "everyday people" to occasionally be excellent writers. But just because a book sells, it doesn't mean it's not a steaming pile of crap. Do you feel like the review processes at Amazon and Goodreads help with this? If a book is a stinker, not only will its Amazon ratings be low but it'll sink so far to the bottom, it won't show up in searches well. Do you trust other readers' reviews or only those of professional reviewers? (I re-read that and it sounds snarky but I don't mean it that way; truly curious  . I'm learning a lot about readers' preferences in this thread). I'm amazed at the Amazon e-book stats. There are millions of self-published books and consumers are eating them up. Granted, I have 400+ books on my Kindle and have probably read only 1/4 of them! |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 13:35:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 23:21:38 GMT
I work with self-published authors and am about to be one myself (though starting with non-fiction). The party line these days is definitely to write at least 3 books and not only that but to have 3 ready to go before you publish any of them. This is based on what readers are asking for/demanding. Regular, everyday people are making a living as writers (who used to be stuck in a cubical working for The Man) and I think that's awesome! I fully support the business model and it's based on what sells so the majority of readers must like series' I understand the point about not writing 3 books if the story is not good enough to carry them though. On the other hand, if a book and characters ARE good, wouldn't you rather have 3 books to read? Many times, I get attached to a character and I'm sad there's only one book. To me there's a difference between a trilogy where all three books are necessary for the story and a series that has books that are more standalone, but revisit the same characters and has some continuity in story. I think the best series are ones where each book has it's own story that has a natural arc to a conclusion, but also contains elements of a story that arcs over the whole series and continues to develop and flesh out the characters. For me, excellent examples of this are: Jo Nesbo's Harry Hole series (excepting the first book), CS Harris's Sebastian St. Cyr series, Karin Slaughter's Will Trent series, and of course Harry Potter. And I think Sue Grafton's Kinsey Milhone series has done a good job of this near the end. In the end, I don't care how many books are written - one standalone, a trilogy, a series - as long as the writing, stories, and characters support the number of books and it's good reading. I think it's interesting that the current model has writers having to write/submit at least three books before getting published. I'm guessing that's more for self-published or genres? Agree with everything you said. And I'm sorry, I've been referring mostly to self-publishing but didn't make that clear. It's extremely difficult to get a publishing deal these days and even when you do, the author is responsible for much of the publicity and interaction with fans. |
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 1, 2016 23:29:37 GMT
I am sooooooooooo(x 100) over the multi book series. I don't mind a multi-book series if each book is somewhat self-contained. Then I can read them as individual works (although I have the need to read a series in order so I find out things about the characters as the books progress). I have a few series that I really like-- certain mystery authors have the same main characters, certain science fiction series are all set in / on the same world, that sort of thing. But the trilogies that are OBVIOUSLY written to ONLY be trilogies seem VERY contrived to me for some reason-- it seems like the author is only trying to cash in on The Hunger Games / Divergent idea. (or they're hoping for a movie contract out of it; maybe what I dislike is the books --> movie trilogy thing) ETA: I think pudgygroundhog said what I was trying to express-- if it's obvious that the plot is thin or padded to just take up space and stretch a story out to get a second (or third) book out of it when the story really doesn't need 250 more pages to tell, then that, to me is NOT a good trilogy or series. As for forgetting what happened in between books, I like to re-read books so that's not an issue for me. I will re-read (or skim) a book before reading the next one if it's that important. But I also think a GOOD author writes so the reader doesn't HAVE to do that; they will re-cap some of the backstory that you might need to have in a way that it seems natural-- or the plot is self-contained enough that you don't HAVE to remember a lot of stuff from the previous book. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 13:35:17 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 1:14:25 GMT
Truthfully this is not great news for people who love literature. It's just another example of the dumbing down of the world. I'm not saying that it's impossible for "everyday people" to occasionally be excellent writers. But just because a book sells, it doesn't mean it's not a steaming pile of crap. Do you feel like the review processes at Amazon and Goodreads help with this? If a book is a stinker, not only will its Amazon ratings be low but it'll sink so far to the bottom, it won't show up in searches well. Do you trust other readers' reviews or only those of professional reviewers? (I re-read that and it sounds snarky but I don't mean it that way; truly curious . I'm learning a lot about readers' preferences in this thread). I'm amazed at the Amazon e-book stats. There are millions of self-published books and consumers are eating them up. Granted, I have 400+ books on my Kindle and have probably read only 1/4 of them! No worries, it didn't seem snarky. We were talking about this on another post, how trustworthy are the reviews on Amazon. I usually pick a book based on word of mouth, or a review that I read in a newspaper or magazine. I always check out the "Kindle Daily deals" and if the book sounds interesting to me, for $1.99 I usually just go for it. In those cases, I MIGHT look at the overall rating but I take them with a grain of salt, especially if there are only a few, as I suspect they were written by the author's friends and family. I don't want to seem like a book snob. I am a devoted, constant reader, I was an English major and I admire and appreciate great literature, but I don't expect everything to be Shakespeare. I enjoy all kinds of books, including well written chick-lit or murder mysteries or any other genre. And I certainly don't blame anyone for giving it a shot to make a living as an author. But it REALLY bothers me when I read something that is just absolute garbage. This isn't limited to the self-published world. I believe that some authors get a "name" and then people will just flock like sheep to buy ANYTHING that they put out. A case in point is Danielle Steele. Back in the day, she wrote some really good, fun, trashy novels. I hadn't read anything by her in a long time, and I picked up "Big Girl" more recently because it sounded like an interesting premise. OMG, it is possibly the worst thing that was ever written. I don't even think that Ms. Steele bothered to write it; I think she hired a semi-literate 8th grader to throw it together for a few bucks a page or something, and no editor bothered to read it because if it says "Danielle Steele" people will buy it. Okay, rant over. |
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,648
Location: The Grand Canyon
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Jun 2, 2016 1:18:07 GMT
You made me laugh, and I completely agree with you about points A and B, and also about the dang trilogies. I plowed through The Passage several years ago, not realizing it was the first in a trilogy and ended on a cliffhanger. That book was a damn doorstop! There was no way I wanted to have to re-read it to catch back up with the story when number two and number three came out. So that was the end of that. I am also really tired of reading books written in the present tense. And historical characters with modern values and speech. If I've come to a series late, I've decided to wait for all books to be out before I read them so I can read them back to back (there is one I plan to read this year once the final book is released - The Invasion of Tearling or something like that). I also have taken to writing book reports for myself if I read a book that will have a sequel.  I read an interesting article from David Mitchell about the unique task for an author writing a historical book regarding speech. If he were to truly write in the language of the time, the book would not likely be as readable by a modern reader, yet you can't have modern speech. He said in a way an author has to kind of craft a language that works for both - true to the time but readable and easily comprehensible by a modern reader. As for modern values - I don't mind so much, depending on the character, story, and context. Sara Donati had an interesting afterword in her period book The Gilded Hour (late 1800s in NY). She said it was difficult to write about women in that time period without it being too damn depressing, yet I thought she found a good balance. She had strong female characters, but was still able to convey the challenges women faced in that time period. |
|
A recent exception for me was the Red Rising trilogy. I thought it was well done and really enjoyed it. I also really liked the Daughter of Smoke and Bone trilogy. I'm awaiting the follow on books to Flight of the Silvers - loved that book and I hope the other books (not sure how many books are planned) are just as good. 
. I'm learning a lot about readers' preferences in this thread).
