Knowing when you've done good

[gmw]

In the thread on tropes I happened to ask:

Originally Posted by gmw

[...] 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?

When I got the following reply from Cinisajoy it seemed to me worth a separate thread:

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

You will know you are achieving good when you get lovers and haters.

I think the essence of this is true - you will know when people start talking about you - but I have a quibble/clarification:

I can accept that you probably won't really know until people start talking about you, but just because they are talking about you won't mean you've done good (or bad). It's not just whether they're saying nice and/or horrible things. (I can think of a few examples that would get me kicked to the P&R forum.)

I think it's whether they are saying things that bring some of what you put in your story back to you. I have garnered very few reviews so far, so people are not talking about me, suggesting I've done neither particularly good nor particularly bad (or maybe I'm just still on the TBR pile, whatever). Of those few reviews, so far only one clearly suggests to me that the person saw what I saw*.

They don't even have to have liked what they saw, but if they seem to have seen what it was I tried to write then I call that doing good.

There is, I suppose, a certain amount of vanity in that - but why else do we publish except the vanity of thinking we've creating something that others might enjoy. But it does sum up what I hope for as a writer. It's possible to achieve success, and be "good" in the eyes of the others, but until I am convinced others see what I saw when I was creating the story I won't really think that I've got it right.

* Other's have told what they saw and that's great (I am most certainly not criticising any of those that left reviews), but people see all sorts of things in stories - sometimes when talking about a specific book with someone you can start to wonder if you read the same story. What I'm getting at with the "saw what I saw" thing is being able to feel that the story I tried to tell actually made it over intact. Even with the best (or worst) of reviews this is not always clear.

[arjaybe]

That is a problem. You can read your story and like it. You can feel that it's a good story apart from your closeness to it. But until someone else says something about it you can't know for sure. Reviews are gold.

[Cinisajoy]

I am not going to quote your post because it is so long but I want to address the last part of your statement.
It is not whether the reader saw exactly what you saw. It is that the reader saw something in your story that attracted them. You have to remember the reader is reading it with their own experiences and background.

Let me give you a couple of examples.
Take an entertainer for example. You could write about one even if you have no experience being an entertainer. Your reader may have actually been an entertainer and will more than likely see that character as slightly different than you intended.

Other example comes straight from a book. (The guy needed an editor that didn't worship the ground he walked on.)
There was a drug scene in a book. The author had the guy roll two joints. One for him and one for the girl he went home with. Another drug scene had the guy sharing a joint with guys he didn't know It made no sense.
My first thought was the author had never done drugs. Almost took me out of the story. Later worse things did make me NOT finish the book and even though the guy has published another 4 at least since then I have not bought any of them.
Turns out the only time the guy had seen drugs was when a dealer was giving away free samples.

So yes, prospective is everything.

So remember, your reader is rarely if ever going to see what you see.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

[...]So yes, prospective is everything.

So remember, your reader is rarely if ever going to see what you see.

I do understand that everyone brings their own background/baggage to a story and that can shape how the story comes across. A writer hopes that a certain amount of common/shared background will let the reader understand things without the writer having to state them explicitly, but it cuts both ways, because the unshared background may change the reader's response.

And if the reader's response is other than that intended by the writer the result can only be serendipitous (or the opposite). And if you did not intend it then you can you legitimately claim credit for it? ... The answer is, I think, only maybe.

Writers of astrology columns do good when they create such ambiguous statements that many people will find many different meanings in them. This is what they want.

But this isn't what a story writer wants (or not this one). I want to share a story. If the reader did not share my story but enjoyed some variation of it anyway then that's good, but it's not what I consider success (doing good) as a writer.

In summary: I do actually agree with you, readers rarely see exactly what the writer sees, but I'm just perverse enough to want more.

[Cinisajoy]

Now sweetie,
I think what you really want is for people to enjoy reading your books. Whether they get your exact meanings or not.

In my lifetime I have read two books that gave me nightmares. One was non-fiction and the other one was fiction.
The first one I read in either 1988 or 89. It was "Don't cry it's only thunder". I still remember that book but even though the author was showing the ravages of war, I doubt he intended to cause nightmares.

The second one was "Serial Killers, Uncut" by Blake Crouch and Jack Kilborn. I am pretty sure they wanted to cause nightmares.

So now, just do your best and if someone loves your book you have done good. Don't worry about the psychological stuff.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Now sweetie,
I think what you really want is for people to enjoy reading your books. Whether they get your exact meanings or not.[...]

That would be nice too.

As you mentioned with regard to nightmares, it is possible to sometimes be too effective. One reader (a family member) could not finish my first novel. They never got past the first few chapters, they found them too depressing. In some respects this was flattering, they were intentionally emotive and tragic ... but they were not supposed to be so depressing that the reader couldn't keep going.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by gmw

That would be nice too.

As you mentioned with regard to nightmares, it is possible to sometimes be too effective. One reader (a family member) could not finish my first novel. They never got past the first few chapters, they found them too depressing. In some respects this was flattering, they were intentionally emotive and tragic ... but they were not supposed to be so depressing that the reader couldn't keep going.

I just grabbed a free sample of your first book.
Loved the prologue. Your writing is fantastic. You pull your reader in and they can feel everything.
Now that being said, right now I can't get past the first chapter. You had me almost crying from the second page.
I predict you will be an author that I can say I knew him before he hit it big.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

[...]I predict you will be an author that I can say I knew him before he hit it big.

Only if I can learn not to turn readers away in the first chapters. (And if I can find more time to write and publish, and if I can learn to write better blurbs, and if ... .)

Thanks for the kind words. The prologue was written last (though it existed in notes long before that), and I think this shows in its being smoother than some of the first chapters.

Now you can see what I meant in the previous post. It's a good feeling to know your writing is having the intended impact; it's just a bit inconvenient that this particular impact had to be right at the start of the story.

[HarryT]

Be careful not to confuse the noun or adjective "good" with the adverb "well". "I've done good" only ever means "I've performed good deeds". If you want to say that you've done a good job, you must say "I've done well".

"Good" appears to be widely confused with "well" in spoken American English, although much less so in British English. Perhaps it's just a colloquial usage. Whatever the reason for it, although it's acceptable in dialogue, it shouldn't be used in any other circumstance.

[Dr. Drib]

Think of it this way, and you'll never get confused:

When you need to poop, poop on the paper - like my dog - and then we say, "Good boy! Very good! Very good!"

He gets very happy and starts wagging his tail for a job well done.

I know that you can do this, too.

I hope this has helped for anyone who is grammatically challenged.












This story is true!

[kennyc]

Do gooder!

[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.

[kennyc]

I except it.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I except it.

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

[kennyc]

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".