Colin, I thought it was useful, too - because debate is always useful. But the advice Terry is reporting is very much the exact opposite of what I had to learn when I switched from writing (exclusively) formal non-fiction to writing commercial fiction. Is all.

No harm in discussing it, surely, is there?

Rosy

And that's a bloody good point, Terry, about needing to keep on producing the next book to a short timeframe. That was the thing that shocked me the most, I think, at the start. You've written one book, and there's a temptation to want to sit on your laurels for a bit, enjoy the momen - I stupidly pictured novel-writing being this mellow, slow-germinating activity - but there's this two- or three- book deal and immediate pressure to be finishing the next one...

(Though it may well be different in more literary fiction?)

If you mirrored 'natural thought' in prose it would be unreadable and boring

Or it might be Ulysses, considered by many the greatest work of 20th C literary fiction

It's certainly a useful post, thanks Terry. I haven't seen anyone being defensive, just people discussing the topic - what's wrong with that?

Rosy, no there's no harm in discussing writing. In fact, it should be essential on a site like this.

The fact is, a good writer can of course bend or even break the rules. But he or she can't do that until they first understand, then master, them. And I'm sorry but what I've read of chick lit doesn't convince me that I'm reading masters - mistresses? - of their craft who have the skill to break the rules in such a way that improves the story-flow.

See, I think there's a very fine line between bad grammar and 'deliberate stylistic effect' - at least there is for most authors. As an editor, I feel confident in saying that the majority of sentences I read that break me out of the reading flow are unconsciously bad ones, not deliberate effects. There is of course a distinction to be made here, between mixing in a variety of sentence lengths, word lengths, etc, to cause different effects, to just pulling out one or two word sentences every now and because you think it's cool to do so.

Who knows, perhaps it wasn't so much the correct structure of your early fiction sentences that made them so wooden as your legal background. What I was resisting before, is the argument that constructing proper sentences leads to wooden writing. That's like saying learning to play in musical scales leads to wooden playing. When, really, it depends on the artist. Personally, I don't think any classical music that breaks the rules gets anywhere near the spiritual and emotional content of Sibelius's work.

As for what the editor who told the story meant by 'the publisher', I'm not sure. I think she meant the senior executive; the head of the imprint - but can't say for sure.


<Added>

On reflection, I think one of the reasons this subject gets muddy is because the same level of writing skills tends to be claimed across the various genres and intentions of the publishers. But, actually, this isn't the case. For example, no one would expect a member of Girls Aloud to be able to sing technically as well as an opera singer. The market she's singing for doesn't demand it. And it's unlikely she'd claim that because she's successful in her market, it means that the way she sings is technically as good as an opera singer's. Yet this argument tends to get used in writing. Certain genre markets don't demand a high level of technical writing skill; and there's nothing wrong that - it's what the readers are content with. But writers for that market can't have their technical cake and eat it.

Oh put a sock in it, Terry, and just admit you're a literary snob. You're not seriously tellng me that if someone like Will Self 'dumbed down' his writing he could write good Children's fiction? He couldn't even come close. Why isn't genre fiction included in the Man Booker? Because they are a bunch of literary snobs, not because the writers they choose to include somehow write better than the top 10% of authors across the board.

- NaomiM

No harm in discussing it, surely, is there?

No harm at all - it just appeared when I first read through that there was a tone of reaction rather than discussion. Maybe I got that wrong.

One thing to chuck into the boiling pot is the development of advertising. I think that has a lot to blame for

chopping

<<UP>>

sentences

...and using graphic devices for emphasis. I've seen it used very effectively in some books, annoyingly ugly in others. It gives the impression that fragments equal impact, and sometimes that's the case. Sometimes it isn't. However, stilted sentences, and unclear subject (it/he/they) are something I'm certainly guilty of and I hunt them down and kill the little bastards at every opportunity, because if I ship that stuff out, only to have it come back with editing marks, I'll have to break my right leg in order to kick my own arse.

Colin M
p.s. - happy Easter everyone!

Sometimes it isn't

There's one! Quick, someone stomp on it.

Colin I think Terry knows I rate his posts extremely highly. Nothing hissy-fitty or defensive about it.

I didn't understand the advice. That's why I asked Terry to elaborate on it. I'd never blindly follow rules of advice on writing just because they were from someone in the business. That would be foolhardy. I examine every piece of advice so that whether I use it or not is an informed choice.



<Added>

And look at how we are writing here to each other:
No harm at all.
Nothing hissy fitty etc.

I don't believe the quality of our writing would be improved if we started these sentences with, 'There is.' The language is absolutely clear, succinct, characterful.

I fully accept you can't meddle with grammar if you haven't bothered to learn it in the first place but I do question whether complete sentences constitute better style in themselves.

Joyce Cary (a bloke btw) is winner of James Tait Memorial Prize and listed on Wikipedia as one of the greatest authors in the English language. (Though I'm sure many are. ) He's a fine literary novelist and I recommend him.

I'm not getting at Terry - this is fascinating info he's passed on, which deserves consideration and debate, and I'm grateful for it.

Okay, well, having had my character so expertly described by Naomi, I think it's time for me to leave this thread. But just for the record, Naomi, I'm no fan of literary fiction, including most of what gets nominated for the Booker. I also happen to believe that there is more good writing in children's fiction than most genres. You've wrongly concluded that I'm talking about intellectualism; I'm not - I've been talking about craft. But I realise that distorting what I'm saying makes it much easier to dismiss.

I'm sure the report I posted will be useful to some people, and for the rest, well, just carry on arguing that these editors have got it all wrong. But I wouldn't advise submitting to them.

Terry

And I'm sorry but what I've read of chick lit doesn't convince me that I'm reading masters - mistresses? - of their craft .... I think one of the reasons this subject gets muddy is because the same level of writing skills tends to be claimed across the various genres... But, actually, this isn't the case.

We've had this argument many times, Terry.... but I am terrible at ever letting it go, so apologies to everyone who is bored with this endless ping-pong game. But personally I mistrust any claim that certain genres inherently involve/demand/attract 'better' writing in any absolute sense. They are just different. If it's possible at all to say that writing is objectively good or bad (which personally I rather doubt, at least across a very broad range of published material), then I'd say that there's good and bad within every genre.

Terry, I remember you writing once before that you didn't like literary fiction, but I think you'll agree that's not what these editors meant.It's perfectly obvious when a writer is changing the rules for effect and when they just don't know any better. I'm currently learning Chinese and Spanish but do my teachers assume my mistakes are cute variations? No. They just think I need to study harder. No good arguing that a question doesn't need an upside down question mark at the start as well as an ordinary one at the end, either.I just have to fall in with the way they do it.

So I agree that because editors like complete sentences, regular spelling and standard punctuation that's the way to go. However, going by what's on the bookshop shelves, there may be the odd maverick out there.My feeling is that with time their numbers may increase.

Sheila

For example, no one would expect a member of Girls Aloud to be able to sing technically as well as an opera singer. The market she's singing for doesn't demand it. And it's unlikely she'd claim that because she's successful in her market, it means that the way she sings is technically as good as an opera singer's.

But taking this analogy, not everyone wants to listen to opera singing, or not all the time - and not every singer wants to be an opera singer. There are fantastic folk singers, jazz singers, pop singers, etc. who have just as much technical ability in their own way, and in their chosen style. They're just different skills. (And opera singers are rubbish at singing pop songs.)

I think it's the same with writing. There are good and bad writers in every genre. Some people just don't like pop music or chick lit.

Terry,
I think there should be a seperate award for people who don't. Write. In proper. Sentences.

Best
Sion

As usual I expect it depends on context and example. Seems to me that many book use "improper" sentences here and there either for effect or to reflect thought-patterns, make a point, create comic effect, whatever.

Seems to me that many books use many different devices. I was just looking at Douglas Adams just now. He does it. He is a brilliant comic writer.

Surely the point is whether it is used consciously and naturally and whether it works. The examples Terry and Colin and Sion are using are non-sentences that make no sense in terms of meaning or impact. Some do.

I expect what was being talked about were bad ungrammatical sentences that were just - bad ungrammatical sentences.

People often justify something that was simply a mistake afterwards and say it was deliberate. And sometimes something can be deliberate and still not work or be good.

It is one of those things like Show not Tell where there are examples of lots of "tell" that is simply bad writing and doesn't work, but, taken to an extreme, the Show not Tell "rule" can produce ridiculous overwrought writing that nobody wants.

But perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are meaning by a sentence at all.

I loved Cherys' example "oven". And no sentence has to explain the entire context, after all. The reader will know from the context of the other sentences and the story and information given. A piece of writing that tells you someone has put something in the oven, then shows them distracted by kids, leaving it in too long, having them smell a burning smell and remembering: "oven", is hardly going to be confused with someone about to gas themselves. Unless the roast really did mean a lot to them.

I also think if a writer is aiming to produce a chatty, natural, broken, real-speech, chicklit style then it is a bit strange to talk of those writers as not being "masters/mistresses" of the "craft", as the craft - in that context - would surely be to use the techniques available to create...err...a natural, broken, real-speech, chicklit style.

Unless the roast really did mean a lot to them.

LOL