Passionate thoughts about the world of writing and the Power of God
What is the most annoying thing about a book you don't like?
What "rule" of writing is the most unsatisfying/unnecessary for you?
What particular characteristic is present when you thoroughly enjoy a novel?
God, so much to be thankful for. So much grace. Thank you. In the Name of Jesus, Amen.
Annoying: (assuming you mean writing style & not plot content) There are many things that compete for this honor. A few are: author too lazy to do basic research, jumping around too much from character to character in ultra ADD style (a little of that Maeve Benchy (sp?) style is ok but it’s easy to overdo. Lazy writing that you know they could have done better.
Most unnecessary rule: I don’t know that it’s considered a rule, per se, but deep pov isn’t necessary to the enjoyment of a good book. A scene that is one character’s POV but that occasionally throws in an omniscient POV that the POV character can’t see or know is ok. The world will not cease to spin if the author enriches a passage w/a brief omniscient detail.
Thoroughly Enjoy: this one is hard to answer. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed a novel when it was so darn good it turned my writing analyzer off (rarely happens). But because a book that good turns my writing analyzer off, I can’t pinpoint a particular characteristic. Obviously they’ve done many things well–great characterization, plot, writing…
LikeLike
Great answers. The POV rule annoys me. Vince Flynn head-hopped and it didn’t cause one difficult moment. The Famous One is written over half in the omniscient POV which is supposed to be taboo. And I agree the unusally good novels seem to hit on all cylinders. Thanks, Brenda.
LikeLike
Most annoying: Unrealistic dialogue. I almost always finish the books I start, but the ones I can’t get through most always have bad dialogue. When I find myself rolling my eyes whenever characters speak, it’s time to put the book down.
Most unnecessary rule: Boy, I’m not really against rules, but I greatly dislike it when rule-following becomes legalistic. Readers read for story and don’t pick up on the broken rules, for example, I never noticed Francine Rivers’ severe head-hopping until I became a writer.
But, to answer your question, a couple of silly rules I’ve heard people spout lately are “No prologues” and “No flashbacks”. I see them all the time. If they’re well done, if they work for the story, then why not?
Thoroughly enjoy: When I look over books that have been my favorites throughout the years, the majority do have one thing in common: lyrical prose. Of course my favorites also tell an engaging story with complex characters, but it’s the prose that elevates them to the top.
LikeLike
More great answers, Bren. Oh yeah: bad dialogue. Ugh. Yeah, head-hopping doesn’t bother me to this day if the writer knows what he/she’s doing. In a way, it’s more realistic. And the “NO-NOs”? C’mon, man. Really? The writing police can find more personal vendettas for styles and formats to establish their absolutes. Heck with ’em.
Good, good books invariably contain good prose. Some thrillers of course might not employ the “lyrical”, but they inevitably use language that speaks powerfully in some way. And they use it well.
Thanks, Bren.
LikeLike
Into the Fire 
Leave a reply to Nicole Cancel reply