Knowing when you've done good

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by gmw

I wish you wouldn't do that, Kenny. You had me rushing back to see if I'd said it was "exceptable".

Pleasingly, your anxiety demonstrates that you now understand that there is a low level of tolerance (and perhaps little understanding too) of the cultural and societal aspects of linguistics in these forums. You should take care to write awfully nice like us kiwis do .

Anyway, goodo!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by gmw

Thanks, Harry and Dr. Drib, it's always good to make sure this Aussie, who admittedly suffers from nefarious influences from all parts of the globe, is not under some misapprehension concerning the phrase "done good". Your input also makes sure that any unwary visitors understand the correct phrasing.

In this case, however, my word choice was deliberate. It began with quoting myself, "And failing that, how do I know if I am achieving good?", itself a little dubious, but it seemed appropriate in the larger context. I may have extended my use of colloquialism further than good taste might abide, but in my defence I would claim that all forum conversation is dialogue, and so makes my relaxed use of English acceptable.

The problem is that it makes it unclear what it is that you're asking. Are you asking how you can know if your books are well written, or are you asking if you're "doing good" in the correct meaning of the phrase - i.e. doing good deeds? The point of writing is communication, and when there's ambiguity it obstructs that process.

(I still don't know which of these two meanings you intended!)

[gmw]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The problem is that it makes it unclear what it is that you're asking. Are you asking how you can know if your books are well written, or are you asking if you're "doing good" in the correct meaning of the phrase - i.e. doing good deeds? The point of writing is communication, and when there's ambiguity it obstructs that process.

(I still don't know which of these two meanings you intended!)

One of the reasons why I stuck with colloquialism was that I thought (apparently incorrectly) that it was a succinct way of communicating what I meant without long explanations. (I seem to be naturally verbose, and struggle to keep things short - but I do try ... sometimes.)

For me, at least, well written implies that the writing is eloquent and well formed. It does not follow that I actually enjoyed the story. The Long Earth series was well written, but as much as I love Terry Pratchett (I tend to be ambivalent about Stephen Baxter), I did not enjoy them very much. So this thread was not about whether a story was well written - or not only that.

To explain what I mean by the thread subject, I can do little better than quote the quote from the OP: "I find I can analyse what makes a book a "bad" (or not so good) - in my eyes, at least - but I have yet to work out what makes a book good. And failing that, how do I know if I am achieving good?"

So I am talking about that nebulous concept of what makes a book "good". This is more than being well written. It is more than being fast-paced, or intriguing, or insightful, or well structured. It is the combination of all those things, plus the elusive feeling a reader may get of having been "touched" by a work (not every story hopes to do this, but some do).

The open question from the previous paragraph is whether it is important that (at least some) readers think the book is good, or whether the writer does. But the two overlap. A writer is inevitably their own first critic; they must be able to tell whether what they have written is worth keeping. If they cannot do this, how can they proceed?

When I got my first harsh criticism from a paid professional reviewer I was devastated, not because of the individual criticisms, most of which were fair, but because the summary said that while I showed promise as a writer I should give up the current book and try something new. This summary hits something completely fundamental in a writer: I judged the work to be worthy of sharing, and had been told my judgement was wrong. If I could not trust my own judgement, how could I possibly write anything else?

I got past that, eventually, and worked on the many worthwhile things in the review.

But the experience did leave its mark. I realised that the reviewer had been trying to read a different story to what I had been trying to write. One result of that is that it is very important to me that the story I am trying to tell comes across accurately. Even if the reader ends up not actually liking my story, if they actually read my story then at least I can feel that I did my job as a writer.

One difficulty with this, as discussed with Cinisajoy, is that readers bring their own baggage along with them, and will not always see what the writer was trying to show. What Stephen King (in "On Writing") calls a writer's ESP relies on a certain amount of shared background, and this allows the writer to take shortcuts, leaving the reader to fill in the gaps. This process is never perfect. Even so, what I hope to see in some small percentage of reviews is that my story actually made it across intact.

As you say, the point of writing is communication, but sometimes the words, especially when not well chosen for their particular audience, can get in the way of communication. It is possible to be precise without being clear (think legal documents). The writer's job is to find the balance, but this is difficult (impossible?) without outside help. So I keep hoping for reviews that will let me know if I've done my job.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by gmw

To explain what I mean by the thread subject, I can do little better than quote the quote from the OP: "I find I can analyse what makes a book a "bad" (or not so good) - in my eyes, at least - but I have yet to work out what makes a book good. And failing that, how do I know if I am achieving good?"

I got it, Geoff. No quibbles here.-)

[AnotherCat]

I also had no problem understanding what you meant. I also found that the usage in the header of your post attracted my attention "What is this about, interesting perhaps" I thought.

But I do accept that some readers have difficulties understanding or accepting the likes of colloquialisms, idioms, humor and sarcasm in writing. The following are just my own views and how I feel within myself, so just personal not lecturing.

I have no problem with accepting that idioms, colloquialisms, use of foreign words, use of social and cultural language, creation of new words, playing with grammar, etc. are all part of the wealth of the English language and contribute to its health, growth and evolution. Many of these things, with time, become mainstream and if they did not the language would not have evolved past its beginnings.

So I think it is best when writing to forget about those who give the impression that the rules of language and informative communication are set in stone, and deviation from them is an error (some seem to think even a sin and jump in to criticize). If they were correct I feel that we would never have had some of the works of writers such as Dickens (e.g. a creator of words), Twain (e.g. use of idiom), etc.. Change can happen quite quickly and "to boldly go" is now familiar to and acceptable to most of us, as are other split infinitives; in fact jokes are now made of those who still insist such are grammatically incorrect. It is about communication, flow of the prose, interesting plays on grammar and words, and liveliness, not about worrying about sticklers to rules.

One of the interesting takes on linguistics, if one is into podcasts, I follow and enjoy is Slate's Lexicon Valley (there is also a blog). If not familiar with it, it is American and so mostly American English, and professionally light heartedly produced. It is also very accepting of the changes that have taken place in the English language, current and past idioms, social influences such as rap, etc. and demonstrates those with audio recordings from old films and TV programs (love that spelling, as does the OED but I have been growled at for using it ) or quotes. I think most Australians and NZ'er's (and some others, of course) can readily identify with "Americanisms" and accept them as part of the richness of the English language, but may send some who see the language as being bounded by rules and no peripheral vision outside of those allowed, into a tizzy.

Finally, I like Cinisajoy's comments very much.

Off now for a tinny after those mental gymnastics .

[Cinisajoy]

I got to thinking about the reactions to your book.
Could it be your prologue is way too cheerful before heading into the very depressing first chapter?
The transition may be too drastic.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

I got it, Geoff. No quibbles here.-)

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

[...] It is about communication, flow of the prose, interesting plays on grammar and words, and liveliness, not about worrying about sticklers to rules.[...]

Thanks for your thoughts on this, much appreciated. In regard to the little bit that I quoted: It's not so much "worrying" (although I admit there is an element of that) as it is constantly trying to find the right balance. It's only by exploring both sides that a writer can hope to see where things may be getting out of balance. (It's also why a writer can't afford to be too precious about their writing, because there will always times where the balance is not right, even if it is just not right for a particular reader.)

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I got to thinking about the reactions to your book.
Could it be your prologue is way too cheerful before heading into the very depressing first chapter?
The transition may be too drastic.

That's an interesting thought. It fits quite well with what someone once said to me about falling in love in the characters in the prologue and basically hating me for what followed.

My logic for adding the prologue was that I thought it was helpful to give some context to chapter 1, and I actually thought it might help to show that the book was not all going to be a sob-fest (but this bit may have backfired ). The prologue also has some relevance revealed later; it wasn't critical that the scene existed in print, but it with the other thoughts I finally decided to include it.

I suspect the biggest problem is that I should have cut the first three or four chapters much more heavily than I did (they are quite a bit shorter than originally written) ... but I was still learning to trust the reader enough to see the passage of time without forcing it upon them.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by gmw

Thanks for your thoughts on this, much appreciated. In regard to the little bit that I quoted: It's not so much "worrying" (although I admit there is an element of that) as it is constantly trying to find the right balance. It's only by exploring both sides that a writer can hope to see where things may be getting out of balance. (It's also why a writer can't afford to be too precious about their writing, because there will always times where the balance is not right, even if it is just not right for a particular reader.)



That's an interesting thought. It fits quite well with what someone once said to me about falling in love in the characters in the prologue and basically hating me for what followed.

My logic for adding the prologue was that I thought it was helpful to give some context to chapter 1, and I actually thought it might help to show that the book was not all going to be a sob-fest (but this bit may have backfired ). The prologue also has some relevance revealed later; it wasn't critical that the scene existed in print, but it with the other thoughts I finally decided to include it.

I suspect the biggest problem is that I should have cut the first three or four chapters much more heavily than I did (they are quite a bit shorter than originally written) ... but I was still learning to trust the reader enough to see the passage of time without forcing it upon them.

The passage of time is not the problem. It is the sob fest in the first chapter after such a loving scene.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

I also had no problem understanding what you meant. I also found that the usage in the header of your post attracted my attention "What is this about, interesting perhaps" I thought.

But I do accept that some readers have difficulties understanding or accepting the likes of colloquialisms, idioms, humor and sarcasm in writing. The following are just my own views and how I feel within myself, so just personal not lecturing.

I have no problem with accepting that idioms, colloquialisms, use of foreign words, use of social and cultural language, creation of new words, playing with grammar, etc. are all part of the wealth of the English language and contribute to its health, growth and evolution. Many of these things, with time, become mainstream and if they did not the language would not have evolved past its beginnings.

So I think it is best when writing to forget about those who give the impression that the rules of language and informative communication are set in stone, and deviation from them is an error (some seem to think even a sin and jump in to criticize). If they were correct I feel that we would never have had some of the works of writers such as Dickens (e.g. a creator of words), Twain (e.g. use of idiom), etc.. Change can happen quite quickly and "to boldly go" is now familiar to and acceptable to most of us, as are other split infinitives; in fact jokes are now made of those who still insist such are grammatically incorrect. It is about communication, flow of the prose, interesting plays on grammar and words, and liveliness, not about worrying about sticklers to rules.

I make my living from writing (technical stuff, not fiction), and for the material I write, clarity and lack of ambiguity are the most important characteristics of it. Of course the "rules" of language aren't set in stone, and they do indeed evolve over time, but I would respectfully maintain that being able to write grammatically correct English (or whatever language one happens to be writing in) is an essential skill for the author and, alas, one which many appear not to possess these days. It's fine to deliberately "break the rules" on occasions in order to achieve a desired effect, but before you do break the rules, you'd better know what the rules are!

The company I work for takes on a number of apprentices every year, and unfortunately it's rare to find one who's capable of writing coherent English. I don't know what children are taught in English lessons in British schools these days, but grammar appears not to be among the skills they're taught. I daren't let our customers see the stuff that most of them write - it's not fit for purpose.

I think we're saying essentially the same thing here: there's nothing wrong with innovation in the appropriate context. The issues arise when people just don't know how to write formally when the occasion does require it.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I make my living from writing (technical stuff, not fiction), and for the material I write, clarity and lack of ambiguity are the most important characteristics of it. Of course the "rules" of language aren't set in stone, and they do indeed evolve over time, but I would respectfully maintain that being able to write grammatically correct English (or whatever language one happens to be writing in) is an essential skill for the author and, alas, one which many appear not to possess these days. It's fine to deliberately "break the rules" on occasions in order to achieve a desired effect, but before you do break the rules, you'd better know what the rules are!

The company I work for takes on a number of apprentices every year, and unfortunately it's rare to find one who's capable of writing coherent English. I don't know what children are taught in English lessons in British schools these days, but grammar appears not to be among the skills they're taught. I daren't let our customers see the stuff that most of them write - it's not fit for purpose.

I think we're saying essentially the same thing here: there's nothing wrong with innovation in the appropriate context. The issues arise when people just don't know how to write formally when the occasion does require it.

In answer to your question, probably the same thing American children are taught, not much or just whatever is on that stupid state test.

I also have to agree with you on the authors. Your opinion which pretty much matches mine is why I am here and not somewhere else. I see you are posting more in another forum. You are appreciated by the authors.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I see you are posting more in another forum. You are appreciated by the authors.

I'm afraid you're mistaken; I don't post on any other writing forums.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid you're mistaken; I don't post on any other writing forums.

Another forum here at MR. And you are very much appreciated by the readers that look for books there.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by HarryT

...and, alas, one which many appear not to possess these days...

So when was the golden age of such ability among the populace?

Or are we just in an unlucky bad patch of diminished ability at the moment?

Or has similar been said through the ages since the time when Thoth's gift evolved into script?

I'll pick the last.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

So when was the golden age of such ability among the populace?

Or are we just in an unlucky bad patch of diminished ability at the moment?

Or has similar been said through the ages since the time when Thoth's gift evolved into script?

I'll pick the last.

Or is the populace without the ability is now able to publish easily?
I think that is who HarryT is referring to.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

So when was the golden age of such ability among the populace?

Or are we just in an unlucky bad patch of diminished ability at the moment?

Or has similar been said through the ages since the time when Thoth's gift evolved into script?

I'll pick the last.

When I was in school (back when dinosaurs roamed the earth), I was taught English grammar. Alas, such seems not to be the case any more.