Critique of Bad Fiction

Several years ago, i did a critique for a friend who wanted my editorial-writerly insight on some stories she wrote. After i read them, i was then uneasy, because i am not willing to lie, yet i didn't want to hurt her feelings. When she asked about the results of my reading, I told her i was afraid she wouldn't like my critique. She stated emphatically that she wanted the cold hard truth. And so, that's what i gave her.

Below, is the critique, and i post it because i feel it covers lots of territory that every new writer should be made aware of.

CRITIQUE:

I've marked your copies up, but thought it might be hard to read. I don't have the best penwomanship...so I'll expound here.

I wish I had your writing in electronic form, because it would have been neater for both of us and I could also run stats on the writing and give you a better idea of things like reading level and frequency of word usage. These things are very helpful to me after I finish a draft. I do the polish and cleanup and some formatting after the story/book is done.

Onward. . .

I don't pretend to be a writing instructor, but I have learned a few things along the way, and will just mention a few points. If you are serious about becoming a writer, I do you no favors by patting you on the head. What you need is constructive criticism. That's what I'll try to give--hoping that it will be taken in the spirit intended...

If you are serious, then understand that you have some work to do. There are many things a writer must do to create quality work. Although being a writer is often romanticized, Good Writing is hard. It requires great dedication and thus, it is not for the thin-skinned, nor the meek. Contrary to popular belief, it is not normally something that comes naturally. Rarely is someone able to write great fiction after the whim strikes. It springs from a "need" to write and then becomes a lifelong avocation, passion and SCHOOL, where the writer can learn and teach. . . it has always been a Continuing Education for me.

In all fiction, the story must accomplish the Willing Suspension of Disbelief. In your stories, I was not only unwilling to suspend my disbelief, it was IMPOSSIBLE. If you had not been my friend, I would have stopped reading and told the writer to stop writing and start studying the craft of writing before attempting again. And strangely, I saw promise in your writing with the other things of yours I saw-the erotic story, and the journal entries. Something happened between then and now.

As a conscious writer, you must also identify your audience. Is this just for your girlfriend? Even if it is just for her, I have read other pieces of writing by you, and this batch simply does not hold a candle to the other writings. You wrote the other things, if memory serves, before you met her. So what happened? "End of a Long Hard Day" was so much more real, much more filled out, well-rounded and believable. Has love made you lose your sense, woman? These stories don't show your writing strengths. There is little exposition, and the dialogue is forced, trite, predictable, and not specific to each character.

When I revised As You Were, I had to deal with a lot of harsh truths. I initially started it when I was still a fledgling writer. It was, in fact, my first real novel. I saw that I had ruined an otherwise promising story with all the cheesy melodrama. I had fallen prey to the machinations of the overly-romanticized, even quixotic cogs of sentimentality. Everything in the story was just a pathway to a sexual encounter. To my own fantasies. I learned that if I wanted it to be a real novel, with any hope of engaging other readers, I had to give it more bite. More tension. I had to really challenge those characters. I also had to dial back the props and contrived situations to a believable degree. It was difficult to do that entirely due to the nature of the storyline, which was a romantic suspense one. . .and I also had to make sure that the plot twists were credible. For example, in one of the early drafts, I set up the premise that Brittany could not be found after her accident, because there was no ID in the vehicle-completely OVERLOOKING the fact that cars have VIN numbers and are registered to someone. I worked that part out without compromising where I wanted the story to go, but it was a challenge. And it took the keen eyes of someone else (Justi) to shed light on those things. . .While I'm still not entirely certain I pulled all that off effectively, I know it is at least a much better book than it was, and plausible. You can only do so much with certain romantic story lines. I had learned that freewriting from a space of romanticism did not create strong fiction. There are certain guidelines that are helpful, and these are too numerous to mention here...to that end, you should look on some writing sites and perhaps join some writer's groups online...and I have books you can borrow too...

Anyway....

I realize you were writing longhand and quickly--and freewriting is a good technique for a draft, but you must be willing to revise more than once. Your mechanics, voice, and word choice are problematic. As an overview, understand that a few NEON signs of bad writing or an unseasoned writer are:

• Not knowing how to format the writing. (A new paragraph is started for each character...have a look at some modern fiction book. Pay attention to how it's arranged).

• Attributions which are largely he said/she said, and used liberally. (You have to know when and how often to use this, and other ways to handle attributions, without repeating he said/she said to the point of distraction. And that doesn't always mean changing "said" to "mumbled" either. Sometimes this might mean not using the attribution at all, but rather using an action or some exposition. Your reader should be able to tell who is speaking without always having the attribution. If they can't tell, your characters aren't individuated yet).

• Choppy, awkward phrasing and timing. (There is a rhythm and a flow to sentences and paragraphs. You must nurture an instinct for that cadence)

• Using exclamation points frequently. (Teenaged girls do this when they write...it's a big no-no in adult fiction).

• Using the same word repeatedly, especially in the same sentence, paragraph or page. (You should never have to use the same word twice in a page--unless it's a conjunction or article or the like. There are plenty of other words in the English language. Using synonyms will both help the flow and also add nuance to the content)

• Overtly sentimental content (all the lovestruck comments, honey-this and honey-that and you-were-so-wonderfuls, etc., are overkill. This makes your writing sound immature. There is a bold line between poignant writing and cheese).

• Contrived situations that lead to what the writer obviously is most interested in--in this case, sex. (readers are smart enough to spot it when they are being led down the garden path. Any reader with half a brain cell will be offended if they don't feel the events are plausible, or a natural extension of plot or character development).

• Dialogue that does not ring true, and does little to move the story or reveal character. If you are going to take liberties with grammar, dialogue is one place you can do that-and contrarily, you cannot be precise and proper in dialogue, because people simply don't speak that way, unless they are Harvard-educated members of the intelligentsia. That's why you have to know your characters and how they speak-dialect, regional colloquialisms, the natural flow of conversation. (see marks). Repetition of Words,
  

• quietly
• softly
• reached
• little boy
• nuzzling
• snow
• giggled
• laughed
• pulled
• looked
• hill
• flipped
• phrases,
• we/they said in unison
• looked at
• reached up
• reached for
• we/she began to
• she said/I said

and using clichés:

• "warmed my heart"
• "made me glow with love"
• "looked deep into her hazel eyes"
• "layed together as one" (that one was a misspelling, misusage and a cliché, all at once)
• "lost in her eyes"
• (see marks).

USAGE
The words you choose are closely related to the style you have. To develop your own style, you have to play with words. With the above list in mind, I REPEAT: please understand that there are so many words in the English language, that it is not necessary to use the same one twice, unless you're talking about conjunctions, articles, etc. Redundancy is one quick way of getting your reader to stop reading.

You must find the nuances, and pick a word that will allow the reader to see and feel and hear what your story has to offer.

SETTING & ATMOSPHERE
In these pieces, you say that the snow is falling and the wind is blowing. Beyond that, there is little detail about the weather, its affect on you, whether it incites memory or reveals character, or what it smells like, feels like, sounds like, tastes like, looks like...you must engage the five senses of the reader as much as possible to create a real sensation of suspended disbelief. That's part of suspending disbelief, too. It has to feel real, before the reader will go on the journey you wish to guide.

Also, in only one place, did you mention where you were, and I was frankly surprised it was Canada. You let that go on too long before identifying the location. And where in Canada? Why were you there? did you like it? Did you both live there? or did one of you move? Why? Did it have to do with how you met? All these things are setting and atmosphere, because they set the tone, and allow the reader to relate, and to understand what's happening, and feel it like YOU do.

PLOT
There is no discernible plot in these stories. While it might seem that short stories don't allow room for a plot, this is not so. There should be a plot in any story, if it is indeed fiction. Further, plots in short pieces are necessarily more succinct because they have to accomplish the same goals in a shorter amount of space.

The purpose of plot is to have a compelling series of events that make sense and create tension.

If I had to explain your plot in one of the stories, it would go something like this::

Two amorous lesbians go snow sledding, find an injured toddler in a ravine, take him home and put him on the bed, have lots of sex, and then hear on the news that his parents are looking for him. They call the number on the screen, and police bring the distraught parents to their house, where one of the lesbians asks the mother why her son was sledding alone, to which the mother replies with a detailed account of the boy's history, and then the family and police leave and the two lesbians decide they will also have a child...

This plot synopsis--does it sound like anything you would want to read? You must be careful not to contrive situations for your own need to get to "the good parts." Your personal attachment to these characters shows in that sense, and it only serves to cripple the writing. What is the point of these stories? Why are you telling them? Is it just a form of literary masturbation? I think you are too close to this material, and so you write to satisfy your own fantasies, and not for a reader. The reason your girlfriend likes it is because she is in the same space you are, and it's about her and you. But all it really is at this point, is self-gratification. So you need to be clear about WHY you are writing. If it's for you and your girlfriend, then fine. If you are trying to be a real writer, this is going to be a process and it will take time and effort.

AUDIENCE
To beef up these stories, (provided you are attempting fiction) you first have to identify your audience. Is this for young adults? Mainstream readers? Young lesbians? Older lesbians? Only when you know who you are writing to, will you be able to write to them effectively. My guess for these stories is that it was for teenagers, and still, I don't think it is up to par-not even to the level you set for yourself with your previous writings.

CONFLICT
In any fiction, there must be conflict, an attempt to ease the conflict/or exacerbation of conflict, and resolution of conflict. Ideally, you want to create a character that a reader cares about, not a cardboard cutout. Then you must place that character in some dilemma for which there seems no escape. You want the reader to see the character evolve through the conflict and its resolution.

You are interested in these stories because you are in that zone, and it's about you and someone you know...that is often a mistake...while one school of thought tells the writer to write what she knows, another school of thought says to stretch beyond that...both suggestions have merit. One thing you must realize, though, is that there is little interest for a reader in representations of idyllic relations and events. The content here is overtly sentimental, cheesy, trite...it smacks of pre-pubescent girls, and yet your characters are supposed to be adults. They behave in ways that are not adult-like...they speak in ways that most people simply do not speak. They are not three dimensional. They are not meeting any obstacles. Conflict creates interest. Challenges create intrigue and tension. These things keep the reader turning pages. Which leads to...

CHARACTERIZATION
These two characters and the few secondary characters are one-dimensional...often referred to as Cardboard Characters. You never allow the reader any authentic sense of who your characters are. We don't know what they look like, or what they are about. The only specific is that K. has hazel eyes, and that you have had some sort of training in medical or first aid. The reader wants to know enough about the character so that he/she can relate on some universal level. You can do this in exposition, in dialogue, and in what they DON'T say, as much as what they do.

My suggestion is to step away from the personal aspects of this content, and merely use it to springboard into something else. Make these characters multi-dimensional. The most common way is to allow the reader some insight into who they are ASIDE from the relationship...and another way you do that (as I mentioned) is to have them in some sort of conflict.

It does not make your characters appear credible when they miss the obvious, or they behave in ways that don't make sense. They should have immediately contacted the authorities after finding the child. They most certainly should not be having wild sex repeatedly while a child lies unconscious in the other room. If the plot dictates that they cannot call anyone, give a credible reason for it, i.e. a dead cell phone, or ice on the land line. You really must explain their patently cavalier method of dealing with the child. It's also not believable that that experience changed them to the point that the one character suddenly wants to have a child after not wanting to. That experience simply was not poignant or powerful enough to incite such a deep-seated change. When you sent your characters to dinner at the pizzeria, I thought there might actually be some plot twist, where the child figured into the story somehow, or the waiter you introduced might have some connection, and maybe it was all going somewhere--but this did not happen. Again, you introduced a character and told us a few things about him, but he did not move the story any more than a lead weight would have. You HAVE to populate your story with people who MATTER--and not just to you, but to a reader. Any reader. And especially a reader who doesn't know you at all.

You are in the throes of a new relationship and you have sex on the brain. Don't let it interfere with telling a story with meat on it. It can't just be one situation leading to another for the sake of having sex. If you feel the need to do that, write erotica. (your other erotic story was pretty good). And if your characters have a different set of goals for having children, don't be obvious about placing a child-catalyst in front of them...this kind of contrived element is very difficult to accomplish with any degree of credibility. It's very difficult, in general, to write romantic stories without coming off cheesy. Your tale will ring true if it is more hardcore--more like our day to day lives during a time of stress or important events...you have to breathe some life into your characters. Why do I care? why would anyone care? does every line move your story?
does every paragraph really count toward that end?

EXPOSITION
Your nouns and verbs should have enough strength on their own to stand without lots of modifiers and adverbs and adjectives. It's a good idea to look for all your gerunds and cut back on using them. (gerunds are made by adding -ing to a verb, and -ly words).

As for the actual telling of the story...Does it really matter that a character brushed her teeth, put on pajamas, walked down the hall, smiled, flipped on a light....? these are play-by-play notations that are not at all helpful in moving the story, or enriching it, or revealing character. Instead of brushing her teeth, have her brush with a certain brush because she always has used that one, and always starts on the right, and always rinses twice, without knowing why...use the ACTIONS of the character to REVEAL character. It is exceedingly dull for a reader to trudge through the play by play, for no real reason. The way in which you accomplish this is what will set you apart from other writers. You have something unique to say. If you read this and it was written by someone else, what would you say about it? can you remove yourself from the writing? you HAVE TO or it will not aspire to anything but a romanticized journal entry. Make it matter.

The only way I can suggest you do this is to study articles about writing, and other writers. Compare what you write to how they write and find the differences --try to mimic their techniques. Ironically, if you can imitate them, you are on your way to finding your own voice. That's what I mean when I say you have to know the rules, in order to break them effectively.

Assuming you are serious about writing, study the elements of plotting, setting, characterization, conflict, mechanics, etc., and pay attention to the other writers you like to read. The most fundamental rule in plotting is that a story of any size (even a novel) must have a beginning, middle, and end. And it must also bring something meaningful to the reader--meaningful in a universal sense.

Go to that coffee shop, or better yet, to a mall or other busy place, and sit down with your notebook. Take dictation from the voices around you. Get story ideas from the content of their discussion. Get a feel for real dialogue.

Subscribe to a writing magazine like Writer's Digest, and study it cover to cover.

Here are a few online places to check too:

Writer Gazette
Fiction Factor
Learner
Write101
Write101: short story
Building Blocks of Creative Writing

Critique of Bad Fiction

Romancing the Drone

My friend Georgie sent me this link because she knew I'd get riled up and blog about it. She was right.

Romancing the Blog: Purple Prose: A Bum Rap

A blog by Rebecca Brandewyne, the romance writer. She should have named herself Rebecca From Sunnybrook Farm. She's delusional. One look at her absurd photo tells you all you need to know about her writing. She looks like Dolly Parton's illegitimate daughter. Can you say Glamour Shots?

I have written romance before. But i quickly outgrew the sort of romance to be had gushing from the pen of Ms. Brandewyne. I used to believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, too, but again...I grew up.

My main problem with romance novels in general, is that they perpetuate a naiveté about how people really are, and how relationships really go. Yes, yes, i know, it's about ESCAPE. Romance readers want to be taken to another place that is idyllic so they can escape their mundane lives filled with mundane or non-existent romance. I get that. But how are these readers going to change the nature of their lives unless they stop living in a dream world? And what of the unrealistic expectations they place on every potential suitor? Ignorance and delusion is never a solution to the ills we face in this world.

All that aside, I was struck by Brandewyne's ridiculous justifications for her brand of idiocy. Here's a prime example from the blog link above:

"So-called clean writing actually has very little to do with good writing—and a great deal to do with saving on paper costs."

Dumbass. Yes, she does have a "following" and if you are the least bit schooled and practiced in quality writing, you know who those followers are. I mean, Charles Manson had followers too. So did Liberace, and Zsa-Zsa Gabor and Marie Antoinette; and currently, there's the Paris Hilton bunch.

"Clean writing" for the fiction author has NOTHING to do with saving paper, and EVERYTHING to do with good writing. But i wouldn't expect anyone with only half a brain cell to understand this. There will always be, as my friend Georgie says, "straight women who don't have lives, hate their husbands and kids and can only find entertainment in romance novels." Odds are, these women are also uneducated, quixotic and delusional, like Brandy Wine, or Brandewyne. Why am i so caustic? Because i feel that bad writing reflects on writers everywhere. And for those of us who care about the quality of our work, born of many years of learning and striving and making hard choices, it's insulting to the nth degree.

She mentions in this blog that she was a journalism student, as well, and this is her excuse for her bad writing. Half my major was journalism, too, but i understand the distinction between journalistic writing and fiction writing. Trimming, in journalism, is often about what she said--fitting the words on a page--but it's also about being succinct and concise so that people can get on with their lives while keeping up with all the news. In the case of fiction, however, it's about quality, not quantity. She's too thick to even understand that.

To make her ignorance more stark, she says, "So, now, you know the etymology of the phrase. Purple prose was originally brilliant, effective prose." Yeah, and now it's been reduced to what SHE writes. If she's going to speak of etymology, she ought to learn that etymology is as much about the CHANGES in a word's meaning, as it is about the ORIGINAL meaning of a word. I don't care if she is published--there's always an audience for insipid, vacuous drivel. There will always be plenty of stupid people to write for. Just because they can read, it doesn't mean they are sources of validation or wisdom. You can stand for hours in a garage, but that doesn't mean you're a car.

Think I'm exaggerating? Here's and excerpt, i found at random, first try, from one of her books:

"It was time.
Storm gazed lovingly at the man who lay sleeping so peacefully by her side, there was no need of words between them, no need to tell him of her decision. He would know she had made it the moment he awakened and looked into her eyes. He would know too how very painful it had been and how much it had cost her. Yes, he would understand all that-- and more.

She reached out one hand to gently brush away a strand of hair that caressed his cheek. He was here. He was real. He was hers, this man, forever. Only death could separate then now, and they had lived with death too long to fear it. It was as much a part of them as the shadows they cast beneath the fierce Texas sun."

Someone, hand me a pail, quickly, before i hurl on the floor.


Throughout her writing, she also liberally sprinkles every cliché known to humankind, and breaks every rule of intelligent, poignant and meaningful prose, character development, plotting, and verisimilitude.

The fact that Brandewyne is on the NY Times Bestseller list is inconsequential. Every good writer understands that being good is not always the criteria by which a book winds up on that dubious success list--it's about how many people want to read that kind of thing; and as we all know, far more people fall into the "simple" category, than into the category of complex and erudite. Seasoned, quality writers also know that if they want to make some easy money, all they have to do is come up with some breezy, romantical pen name, and crank out a bunch of maudlin purple prose, and they get a check. That's because of all those aforementioned uneducated, puerile individuals who populate our census data. The same can be said for other industries like music, art, fashion and paddle-ball.

I'm only just now seeking a mainstream publisher, after over 20 years of writing, because i felt i needed to polish my craft enough to be proud to have my name on it, and to be able to compete with authentic authors of meaningful fiction.

I'll take that, any day, over publishing the cheap, childish fare she does.

Romancing the Drone

Purple Prose & Metaphoric Misdemeanors

* as usual, these are my opinions, based on my own experience of writing and editing for the last 25 or so years. Not all writers, editors and readers will agree, and that's fine. I offer it as valuable information I learned which made me a better writer, in hopes it will help another writer reach that goal.

Writers, beware: You must NOT fall in love with your words. You must fall in love with your craft. That's the thesis for this entire post, but read on, if you want details.

I am forever mortified by the details that many authors place in their stories, which have no bearing on the story itself--not in the development in plot, nor the development of character. It's just there, because the author was in love with the words and his/her ability to string them together like multi-colored popcorn on a gaudy Christmas tree.

Purple Prose, as a term used in the critique of writing was coined by Horace, the infamous Roman poet, in Ars Poetica. The translation of this into English tells us,

"Your opening shows great promise, and yet flashy purple patches; as when describing a sacred grove, or the altar of Diana, or a stream meandering through fields, or the river Rhine, or a rainbow; but this was not the place for them. If you can realistically render a cypress tree, would you include one when commissioned to paint a sailor in the midst of a shipwreck?"

Pouncing on the inherent humor to be enjoyed in this subject, the Edward Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest makes a contest out of mimicry of Bulwer-Lytton's penchant for Purple Prose. The famous opening to his novel, Paul Clifford, begins thus:

It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents—except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.

It is referenced most often by the phrase "It was a dark and stormy night." The contest invites writers to submit their own version of flowery description in the beginning of some fictional fiction work.

A couple of my favorites, incidentally:

The sun oozed over the horizon, shoved aside darkness, crept along the greensward, and, with sickly fingers, pushed through the castle window, revealing the pillaged princess, hand at throat, crown asunder, gaping in frenzied horror at the sated, sodden amphibian lying beside her, disbelieving the magnitude of the toad's deception, screaming madly, "You lied!"
--Barbara C. Kroll, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

The bone-chilling scream split the warm summer night in two, the first half being before the scream when it was fairly balmy and calm and pleasant for those who hadn't heard the scream at all, but not calm or balmy or even very nice for those who did hear the scream, discounting the little period of time during the actual scream itself when your ears might have been hearing it but your brain wasn't reacting yet to let you know.
--Patricia E. Presutti, Lewiston, New York (1986 Winner)

Enough of the digression....let's get back to the subject matter at hand (as Ellen Degeneres says, "...My point, and I do have one...").

The proliferation of Purple Prose is nowhere more apparent than on the Internet in collections of Fan Fiction.* These copycats are often ridiculed or derided, and there is even a version of Purple Prose now referred to as "urple prose." This intentional misspelling is a satirical double entendre, since so much of Fan Fiction is not only fraught with spelling errors, but also often sickening in its tendency toward ornate and tiresome exposition.

I am still floored by the ability of a writer to pound a perfectly good metaphor into the ground, break it off, and thus render it useless and disappointing.

An example of this sort of metaphoric misdemeanor can be found in "The Gate to Women's country" by Sheri S. Tepper. I have had this book for years, hoping one day I'd find the mood to read it. I wanted to read it. I tried to read it. All the accolades from various reviewers encouraged me to read it. But ultimately, I could not read it. I couldn't get past the second page. The concepts and subject matter in this book was at first titillating. Then when I attempted to read it, it just became Tit. As in another writer at the tit of Purple Prose.

Many readers, I suppose, enjoy flowery overkill, but I do not.

I believe that if you allow yourself the indulgence of an extended metaphor, you run the risk of making that metaphor somewhat of a character, and distract from the characters who should have that focus. When this is the case, writing becomes a stalker's love of language, a sort of masturbation by the author, rather than a story about people, for people, and of people. Call me a hard-ass, but I feel a book should be about something other than the linguistic ego of its author.

Having said that, here's an excerpt from the first and second pages of "The Gate to Women's Country" to illustrate this affliction:

"As usually happened on occasions like this one, Stavia felt herself become an actor in an unfamiliar play, uncertain of the lines of the plot, apprehensive of the ending. If there was o be an ending at all. In the face of the surprising and unforeseen, her accustomed daily self was often thrown all at a loss and could do nothing but stand aside upon its stage, one hand slightly extended toward the winds to cue the entry of some other character--a Stavia more capable, more endowed with the extemporaneous force or grace these events required. When the appropriate character entered, her daily self was left to watch from behind the scenes, bemused by the unfamiliar intricacy of the dialogue, and settings which this other, this actor Stavia, seemed able somehow to negotiate. So, when this evening the unexpected summons arrived from Dawid, the daily Stavia had bowed her way backstage to leave the boards to this other persona, this dimly cloaked figure making its way with sure and unhesitating tread past the lighted apartments and through the fish and fruiterers markets toward Battle Gate.

Stavia the observer noted particularly the quality of the light. Dusk. Gray of cloud and shadowed freed of leaf. It was apt, this light--well done for the mood of the piece. Nostalgic. Melancholy without being utterly depressing. A few crepuscular rays broke through the western cloud cover in long, mysterious beams, as though they were searchlights from a celestial realm, seeking a lost angel, perhaps, or some escaped soul from Hades trying desperately to find the road to heaven. Or perhaps they were casting about to find a fishing boat, our there on a darkling sea, though she could not immediately think of a reason that the heavenly ones should need a fishing boat."

I was looking for my hip boots to wade through this mountain of potpourri. I only made it that far before I tossed the book down, saying "Oh, kill me now!"

It's as if Tepper hides behind her words, rather than stands beside them, with them. This suggests a certain fear of being honest in her craft. Perhaps it has to do with the genre, I thought, but then flowery prose usually belongs to other genres, and this was marketed as Science Fiction. Perhaps the book was mis-categorized. Nevertheless, it suffers from the purple prose often found in second rate fantasy and romance novels. If I want something that flowery, I'll plant a garden, thank you very much.

---------------
*Basically, Fan Fiction is fiction based on previously published work, whether from television or novel, created by fans of that work.

Purple Prose & Metaphoric Misdemeanors

He Said/She Said--Attributions in Fiction

When you deal with a lengthy work like a novel, there are opportunities galore to repeat yourself, and being lazy about attributions is a good example of that.

Remember, it doesn't help to change "she said" to "she exclaimed" as a means of beefing up your writing, although in moderation, that can be fine. Repeating the attribution "said" or finding a synonym for "said" is an example of a rank amateur whose writing is rank. In these cases, leave the attribution out altogether. If your dialogue is arranged properly, your reader should always know who's speaking, with only a few strategically placed attributions. Sometimes, you can leave the attribution in, if it seems to flow best that way, but as a general rule, place action there instead. The old caveat is still true: Show. Don't tell.

Here's an example of being careful not to overuse the attribution "Said," from my novel Armchair Detective:

* * *
She held her cup and saucer in the palm of her hand and crossed one shapely leg over the other. The black pump on her foot began to sway lightly from side to side. I caught her eyes and smiled innocently, having a sip of the fresh ground coffee. It wasn't as good as Phoebe's.

"Now then. What sort of arrangement did you have in mind?"

I fought back my reaction to the innuendos that had been present in each sentence uttered by this woman since I came to the door, and instead took another steadying breath. "It looks as though my finances are. . .a bit strained. I'd like to be honest about it. You see, I had to buy tires for my car, since my job requires a good deal of driving."

"What sort of work do you do?"

Great. I hate this question. There's no way to legitimize a career of throwing things in people's driveways from a moving car. "I have a paper route."

She pursed her lips. "Quaint."

I resisted the urge to toss my coffee in her face. "I was wondering if maybe you and I could work something out."

A grin slithered onto Porsha's lips only briefly. "Perhaps." She sipped prissily from the china.

I could probably float a loan from Phoebe, but it didn't feel like an option. Not one I was comfortable with. "I'd like to settle it by putting up some collateral."

"What sort of collateral is that, Ms. O'Brien?" She sat with her back straight, as if the back of the sofa had daggers protruding from it.

"I thought I would give you the title to my car until I can pay you the back-rent, if that would be okay." I sat back against the sofa, daggers-be-damned, and sipped my coffee. The cup felt paper-thin in my hands and I was afraid I'd shatter it if I didn't pay attention to my grip.

"Your car?"

"The Falcon, yes."

"Now what would I do with that silly old thing?"

"You may not care for the car, Ms. Pemberton, but it is worth the amount I owe you. If I default, you would have the title and could sell it at current market value, and I would of course vacate the property so you could rent it again."

Porsha placed her cup and saucer on the glass table and considered me with a thoughtful sigh. Again, her eyes trailed over me, and her tongue painted moisture across her upper lip. "I've an idea. I haven't had dinner yet. Why don't you prepare dinner for me at your place, and we'll discuss it further?"

A frown tickled my brow and was gone. "Dinner? You want to come over for dinner? To my trailer?"

"Why not? I have no other social engagements this evening, and we really must settle this as soon as possible."

I shifted slightly, resting the cup securely in the saucer for fear I'd drop it. "What do you want?"

"Pardon?"

"For dinner."

"Oh," she smiled victoriously. "I'm sure whatever you offer me will be delicious."

I took a final drink of coffee and stood. "Okay. I'll expect you around seven?"

"Fabulous." Porsha rose and I set my cup down across from hers. She went to the door to show me out. "I'll look forward to it," she murmured.

I cleared my throat and smiled. "Good-bye, Ms. Pemberton."

Porsha used the door as if it was a fainting couch. "Porsha. Call me Porsha."

I smiled again. "Porsha." I followed the cobblestone walkway to the Falcon and got in, pausing to stare at the condo.

Well, this is going to be a barrel of freakin' monkeys, I can tell.

* * *

Readers understand when there is dialogue, complete with quotes around it, that already indicates someone is saying something. No need to belabor the point by adding he said, she said at every line. I noticed that John Grisham does this to an alarming degree and it can be incredibly distracting. On any given page with 11 or 12 lines of dialogue, Grisham will use "said" as the attribution 10 of those times. And i also noticed things like "he said aloud" being used. Now when you "say" something , it is a sure bet that it's ALOUD. Saying, indicates aloud, so this is superfluous. That's like saying someone laughed with a chuckle. It's also disheartening, because a well-known successful writer should never be guilty of irritating the reader with such elementary oversights.

Another aggravation is when a fiction writer begins sentences with same word. It gets irritating for the reader. Plus, it pegs you as incapable of finding the melody and cadence in your writing. . . instead, alter the sentence structure so that you can put that repetitive word elsewhere, or exchange it, or remove it altogether. While checking for the aforementioned stylistic faux pas, it's a good time to work with melody and cadence; make sure you vary the length of your sentences for the right effect.

Again, Grisham is guilty of this repetitive word thing. Now, while i think Grisham is a great writer as far as the stories he tells and keeping them interesting, there's just no sense in negating that aspect with a slew of other stylistic errors which serve to water down the impact of those great stories. Not that I'm picking on John Grisham, but i just happen to be reading his book and he just happens to have several examples in it of what not to do as a conscientious writer. And it's important that we don't deify writers so much that we overlook the errors that make them just as human as we are. Perhaps that's the downside of being an established writer, it's easy to stop being so judicious and mindful about style. But for the rest of us, who aren't under a contract, we have to continue to pay attention to these things because they will hopefully one day make a difference in getting that beloved contract.

He Said/She Said--Attributions in Fiction

Moratorium on " i "

i'm declaring Jihad on capital " i's "....okay, maybe just a moratorium.

i can't seem to type them with any regularity. They always come out in lower case.

Maybe it's subliminal indication that i don't think too highly of myself.

signed,

KELLI JAE BAELI

Moratorium on " i "