How does writing style influence your reading choices?

[Catlady]

I have read a handful of Wendy Corsi Staub's thrillers, all of which have been written in third person present tense, I believe. Her books are very enjoyable, quick reads. Even though my first reaction is that present tense is something of an affectation, maybe the present tense is adding to immediacy and pacing.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by delph

And same passage in active voice:

Er, mine was in the active voice, too .

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by delph

And same passage in active voice:



I'm still mulling over the topic. I know that I don't like a lot of description that doesn't advance the plot. I like it when an author shows me their world as part of the story, such as when a character experiences the smells and notes things about their surroundings, as opposed to the author simply describing them.

Present tense is a little jarring to me, though I understand why an author would use it. I'm not truly a bystander in the scene, thus whatever is happening isn't current. This is especially jarring to me in fantasy or sci fi. I recognize this is really a function of my own possibly faulty or overactive logic circuits, and less about the author's writing abilities.

Some of my preferences - or I should say tolerances - shift with the wind. Sometimes I'm fine with flowering prose, and sometimes it just annoys me. I haven't pinpointed what triggers this. I know it isn't simply if the flowery prose is well done or not, as there have been books that I passed over only to enjoy them thoroughly later when I was "in the mood".

Pretty much me.

Helen

[delph]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Er, mine was in the active voice, too .

Mostly, yes. My understanding in my writing classes was that use of a compound verb changes voice to passive. Of course, it's been a few years.

[HarryT]

No, the definition of the active voice is that the subject of the sentence ("I") is the one performing the action ("sitting"), as opposed to the passive voice, in which the subject is not the actor.

The word "was" certainly can indicate the passive voice (eg "I was loved" is passive), but "I was sitting" is an active verb in the imperfect tense.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I have read a handful of Wendy Corsi Staub's thrillers, all of which have been written in third person present tense, I believe. Her books are very enjoyable, quick reads. Even though my first reaction is that present tense is something of an affectation, maybe the present tense is adding to immediacy and pacing.

Interesting. I looked at a couple of previews and I think you are right. Not sure if it appeals or not. I will have to try one one of these days.

Thanks

Helen

[filmo]

Subject matter that interest me is most important. Any style that works for story is OK. I quickly read 3 years before the mast. I like to sail, was in navy and interested in early history of California. I have visited most of the locations in the story.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

An example of rabbits out of the hat books are The Dresden Files, which I like for the most part, but too many last minute saves by something that seems to have been belatedly poked into the first chapter because the author has dug himself a big hole does nothing for my suspension of disbelief.

Deus Ex Machina. The one miracle that makes everything right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina

I HATE that. Even Tolkien did it. Or at least, I consider Frodo's and Sam's rescue by the eagles to be a Deus Ex Machina. It made me wonder: "Couldn't Gandalf, who is of the same order as Sauron (i.e., a Maia) just invoke some of his epic powers to make Gwaihir invisible or something, and just fly the Ring into Mount Doom?"

EDIT: LOL. I didn't read the entire link before I posted. Look at this.

In The Return of the King in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the ending where Sam and Frodo, having journeyed across Middle-earth for months to reach Mount Doom, has been criticized for them being suddenly rescued by eagles and taken back to Minas Tirith. This is parodied in Bored of the Rings, where the characters Frito and Sam are rescued by an aircraft from "Deus Ex Machina Airlines."

That's just hilarious

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"I was sitting" is an active verb in the imperfect tense.

To me that would be passive. "I sat" would be active.

[HarryT]

I'm afraid that's just plain wrong. Look in a grammar book .

As I explained in my previous post, the difference between the active and passive voice is determined by whether or not the subject of the verb is the one carrying out the action. If the subject is the actor, it's the active voice; if the subject is not the actor, it's the passive voice. It really is that simple.

In the sentence "I was sitting", who is the person doing the sitting? It's "I", and "I" is the subject of the verb, therefore the sentence is in the active voice.

For comparison, consider the sentence "I was served by the waiter". Who carried out the action of serving? The waiter. Is the waiter the subject of the sentence? No, the subject is "I", therefore this sentence is in the passive voice.

Believe me, when, like me, you write for technical publishers who are ultra-fussy about this kind of thing you get to know it like the back of your hand.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

To me that would be passive. "I sat" would be active.

Yes, "I sat" is active, but so is "I was sitting." Tense is not what determines active or passive voice. It's active voice when the subject (here, I) is performing the action.

Passive voice would be: "The chair was sat on by me." Chair is the subject of the sentence, but chair is not performing the action.

[HarryT]

Precisely . This is rather elementary grammar.

[crich70]

I prefer stories that have the character doing something as opposed to the author taking several pages to set the scene. Plot is a verb = action and that's what I read for as well.

[Katsunami]

Personally, I started to dislike it when an author suddenly stops the progression of the story to explain some history. Terry Brooks is doing that in "The Elfstones of Shannara" (my current re-read).

Something is going on, a character stops somewhere in mid-stride while he remembers something, and a 4-page explanation of some gone-by time follows; mostly about something you don't need to know at that point in time.

I like it much more when an author weaves that sort of explanation into the story itself, put it inside a dialog between two characters, for example (which Brooks also does in this book), or telling it as part of an / the action. I actually read a huge post about this on some guy's blog some time ago, but I forgot his name. He mostly writes books about dragons... and I remember some book about a woman that is half demon and half angel, and doesn't fit in neither world. If I remember that guy's name, I'll find the site and post those writing tips.

Oh, and one thing I don't like is when characters start speaking in a way no one would ever speak, be they nobles or common folk or what not.

"My lady, are you trembling because of the spirits and ghosts that dwell in this forest, as is told by legends, or is it the chill wind that has taken a hold of you? Please allow me to act as your protector against these foul creatures, and also to collect some more wood for the fire, so you may become warm and comfortable as swift as can be."

Yes... right. So the lady is afraid of the forest, and she's probably cold. So, you make a bigger fire, and sit close to her. Very close. Or something.

I can't fathom anyone ever speaking in such a flowery way, except if there is some sort of very formal or traditional occasion that requires it.