Yes, I think Iāve figured it out. The more I read, the more it takes to impress me. And I think I know why, too. Which is important, donāt you think?
Go to any writersā sites. Any of them. Except for this one of course where I only occasionally refer to āthe rulesā with a sarcastic bite to the words and a definite rebellious tone. Posted on those sites by nearly every author, published and not yet so, you will at some point get the list of āRules of Writingā. The more generous (and wise) of the bunch will add as an afterthought that these ārulesā should be used as guidelines. (Again, thank you Captain Barbossa.) The list screeches about using adverbs and adjectives and ing words, compelling you to eliminate as many as possible. Add to that dialogue tags, a no-no unless the minimal āsaidā is used and as infrequently as possible. And so on and so forth. They've just been posted yet again at a frequented womenās authorsā blog in case youāve somehow managed to miss having them pounded and sculpted into engravings on your grey matter.
What do these rules have to do with reading a lot and impressing me? When itās so easy to spot the diligent usage of the rules to write a story, Iām not impressed. Okay? Iām just not. If all of us writers complied with the rules, we would have more and more of what we have now: a copious amount of forgettable fiction.
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to make characters unique? Stories which seem different? Itās almost impossible. Thereās nothing new under the sun, folks. Nothing. So when a person like me tackles another story, and itās so much like an episode of a series Iāve just watched on television or a novel I read last month, can I say Iām not impressed? So if the plot is clichĆ© only because Iāve read or watched so many similar stories, how can the book āimpressā me? With the writing. Thatās all thatās left.
Do any of you remember the series Shark starring James Woods that only ran for a short time as far as series-television goes? It had a unique plot with a famous defense lawyer switching sides to become a prosecuting attorney due to the domestic murder committed by one of his clients after āSharkā got him acquitted of a domestic violence charge. Besides being perfectly cast, the writing was superb. The dialogue was over-the-top exceptional, the stories complex and interesting. I donāt know why it didnāt last longer, although I must admit to sustain that level of truly good episodes week after week, year after year, wouldāve been tough. Very tough.
Many of you donāt care about TV. Fine. I do. I love it. I look forward to several shows each year. I hope they sustain their level of past expertise knowing full well how difficult it will be to do exactly that. Dialogue has to sync with character growth. Plots have to create new tensions, feature different players, seek out new approaches to the same old processes. Not easy to do and sustain yet another three to nine months of audience interest.
The point? If the writing remains the same old, same old, then the outcome is formulaic, boring, and/or unimpressive. Now. If youāre a new reader to an author or a new viewer to a series, you might not feel the same about the book or show. Itās your first trip in this venue and youāve yet to be impressed or unimpressed. At first view, you might be intrigued. Eager to follow-up with the next novel or the next segment of the series. You might even think this author or this series on TV is the best ever in your world. And thatās terrific! I think everyone should have an opportunity to enjoy the novels and television shows of their choices.
For me, Iāve figured out it takes some interesting writing to impress me. Unfortunately thatās vague. On purpose. I love many different kinds of authors. Their voices, their styles, and their abilities to ignore the āguidelinesā to create fascinating fiction impress me. Big time.
Lord, help me to write the way you want me to write. Help me to be true to you above all others. Jesus, youāre all Iām livinā for . . .
Into the Fire 
Leave a comment