A few months ago, while
messing around on Amazon in search of some new material for my Kindle, I
stumbled across what looked to be an intriguing little ditty about people
mysteriously dying in a neighborhood.
I’m always up for a good suspense novel, so I downloaded it and dug in.
In reading this particular book, so many of the BASICS were missing, I had to wonder if the author 1) had ever read a professionally published book; 2) asked anyone to read the manuscript for them before publishing it.
While much of the writing that populates popular fiction is, shall we say, subjective (*cough*, “Fifty Shades of Grey” *cough, cough*), the truth is, besides the aforementioned basics of good grammar, syntax and vocabulary, there are some standard conventions we as readers should expect to see in a book and as writers, we should all be adhering to, such as:
I never read that book I downloaded. I gave up about 20% in before I skimmed through to the end before deleting it out of my Kindle altogether. I can forgive a lot of things, such as occasionally stilted dialogue, the odd typo here and there, excessive exposition (if it’s interesting at least. If it takes a character ten pages to walk into a room, I’m outta there), plot holes (seriously, if anyone can tell me what the motive for murder was in the otherwise highly-entertaining, “S is for Silence,” by Sue Grafton, I’m listening) convoluted plots – even paper-thin plots – if the writing at least is solid. I can’t, however, suffer through bad grammar, limited vocabulary, and mangled syntax. I do need there to be some meat on the bones of the characters, some descriptions, some dialogue.
Isn’t that what a story’s all about?
Well, I was pretty shocked by
what I read. And I don’t mean because it
was such a delicious, twisty story that I couldn’t put down; it was because the
writing was what I would have expected from a 12-year old, not an adult claiming
to be a professional writer – and who’s charging money to boot. This was a self-published piece, so I know
some people say you have to make some allowances.
There’s allowances and then
there’s just turning a blind eye.
If anything, you have to
elevate your game even more to overcome that “self-published” stigma of poor
quality and amateurish writing (and frankly, calling the writing “amateurish”
is being kind). None of the characters
were described beyond such shallow terms as “hot,” “good-looking,” or
“disgusting.” There was hardly any
dialogue and a mountain of redundancies.
Not to mention typos galore, poor vocabulary and atrocious grammar.
In reading this particular book, so many of the BASICS were missing, I had to wonder if the author 1) had ever read a professionally published book; 2) asked anyone to read the manuscript for them before publishing it.
While much of the writing that populates popular fiction is, shall we say, subjective (*cough*, “Fifty Shades of Grey” *cough, cough*), the truth is, besides the aforementioned basics of good grammar, syntax and vocabulary, there are some standard conventions we as readers should expect to see in a book and as writers, we should all be adhering to, such as:
1.
Describe What The Characters Look Like
It’s not
enough to say your character is “beautiful” or “handsome” or “ugly” or
“impressive looking.” WHY are they
beautiful, handsome, ugly or impressive looking? Are they tall, short, fat, have acne,
thinning hair, or a neck littered with moles? Describing what people look like
adds depth and richness to the characterizations.
In “Gone
With the Wind,” Margaret Mitchell gets right to it on page one when describing
Scarlett O’Hara: “Her eyes were pale green without a touch of hazel…magnolia-white
skin…her new green flowered-muslin dress…set off to perfection the
seventeen-inch waist…and breasts well-matured for her sixteen years.”
It’s even
more interesting when you give them a flaw – like make your protagonist beautiful,
but give her slightly crooked teeth or a limp or one green eye and one
brown. It’s not necessary to describe a
character to within an inch of their life – in fact it’s distracting to do so –
but give the reader SOMETHING to hang their hat on.
2.
Make them Talk
Years ago, I
read a book that contained a line of dialogue so awful, I still remember it to
this day. Two characters were talking
about TV shows, when one asked the other, “Did you ever watch Show X? It was a short-lived TV show that ran on
CBS.”
Come on,
now. Who says “short-lived” in everyday
life? (and mind you, this was a traditionally published book, which just goes to show bad writing isn't limited to the self-published). It would have been more realistic to say something like, “Do you remember
Show X from a few years ago? It wasn’t
on for that long.” Or even, “Did you
ever watch Show X? It came out a few years ago, but it was only on for a couple
of episodes.”
Admittedly,
dialogue is tough. It serves a multitude
of purposes; it develops your characters, moves the story forward and provides
conflict. And it has to sound
realistic. Big job.
Elmore
Leonard is considered a master at writing dialogue, winning praise for the
whip-smart, snappy banter between his characters. In a recent profile
of Leonard, the “L.A. Times Magazine” says his dialogue twists, snaps and curls in the actors' mouths."
Granted,
we’re not all going to be able to do what Elmore Leonard does, but we can at
least shoot to make our characters sound realistic. Listen to conversations around you and take
note of the cadence and the tone. Also, have
the dialogue count for something. Don’t
just say your characters had a nice dinner.
What did they talk about during dinner?
What plot points can you drop into that conversation?
3.
Describe Everything Else
Similar to
character descriptions, this one sometimes gets the shaft. Giving a little bit of description as to what
a room looks like or what something tastes, sounds or smells like, such as the
crunch of sand between bare feet as the salty sea air washes over…you get the
point. Using the five senses to paint a picture brings the story to life.
Sometimes,
this can go overboard. I read a suspense
book years ago where the author described each and every meal the characters
ate in excruciating detail. This wasn’t
a cookbook or book where one of the characters was in the food industry. The overdone descriptions about food added nothing
to the plot and just distracted from the story.
Setting the
scene anchors the characters, yet moves them and the plot forward. Consider this vivid description from “The
Firm,” of a crappy car:
“The ancient
Mazda hatchback with three hubcaps and a badly cracked windshield hung in the
gutter…with three job offers on the table, a new car was four months away.”
The
description of this car really highlights the precarious financial situation
Mitch McDeere and his wife, Abby, are in.
Sure, you can say, they’re poor and have a stack of bills and you kind
of get the picture. But giving this one
little detail fleshes out the predicament while serving as a subtle, yet far-reaching
plot point; when Mitch goes to work for the Firm, they’re gifted with a brand
new BMW, which is one of a series of traps that sets them up to be sucked into
the Firm’s nefarious Web. Small
detail. Big payoff.
I never read that book I downloaded. I gave up about 20% in before I skimmed through to the end before deleting it out of my Kindle altogether. I can forgive a lot of things, such as occasionally stilted dialogue, the odd typo here and there, excessive exposition (if it’s interesting at least. If it takes a character ten pages to walk into a room, I’m outta there), plot holes (seriously, if anyone can tell me what the motive for murder was in the otherwise highly-entertaining, “S is for Silence,” by Sue Grafton, I’m listening) convoluted plots – even paper-thin plots – if the writing at least is solid. I can’t, however, suffer through bad grammar, limited vocabulary, and mangled syntax. I do need there to be some meat on the bones of the characters, some descriptions, some dialogue.
Isn’t that what a story’s all about?
Loved reading thhis thanks
ReplyDelete