Yeh, i couldn't face the film. I think you're absolutely right, genre has everything to do with it and chick lit (and from what i've read of fantasy) are much more liberal with a lot of things - adverbs, flowery language, exclamation marks, to name but a few.

But, like we've said, it's got to be coming from a place of authority and i doubt anyone could really write a good book in these genres, if they WEREN'T aware of the rules they were breaking.

So, JB, next you'll be telling us you've bought Chantelle's autobiography...

Casey

It's a wonderful moment for a beginner to find the confidence to break the rules from a position of knowledge and confidence.

Yes. And it's wonderful - in my limited experience - when you see it happen to someone else's writing. When you point it out, they sort of glow...

I think what you're saying is interesting about genres. Oddly, of course, the rules about plot and style are quite strict - the successful innovators break them, again, from a position of confidence - but they're strict about different things. I wouldn't get very far critting chick lit if I mounted my hobby horse about how brand names date, or in mass-market thrillers if I was demanding subtlety of characterisation.

Emma

Steady Casey!

There are always exceptions, some that prove the rule and some that don't. Clockwork Orange is written in a completely made up language and that did alright. I guess a good story is a good story, and will always shine through, though of course, it's our job as writers to present that story in the best light possible.

JB

I just want to say one thing, coz maybe people have seen what I think of The D* V**** C*** and know how much I utterly, utterly hate it. I would genuinely prefer to read Chantelle's biography.

But anyway, each to their own et al.

I just wanted to say that surely the point of these guidelines, rules, whatever you want to see them us is to make us BETTER writers.

It's not because it makes you more viable in the eyes of the industry.

It's because you want the reader to get as close to the story as possible, and for the characters to genuinely come alive, and for the writing to be the best it can be. It's all very well to say its all bollocks, coz, well yeah it is if you decide you don't need help to improve, and you're happy with how you write, then fine, but if you genuinely want to improve, then they are a great way of learning how to eradicate adverbs, cut down superfluous words, draw great characters, and construct a tight, pacy and well written plot.

That's all. I'll never say another word on it.

You lot can enjoy your dirty Dan Brown orgy of bad writing, and I hope Lord Haughty-taughty Teabag haunts your dreams, and you wake up sweating, screaming, as the crowbarred, shambolic plot seeps into your brains, indenting the banale, stupid and unrealistic clues, leaving you breathlessly jibbering to your terrified other halves.

Unless you're like me, then you'll wake up screaming on your own, and then no-one can save you. You'll be clutching your greying temples like Robert Langdon after booking into his next hotel (everytime he stays at one, something really bad happens. It's called Dan Brown's writing) asking yourself a load of internal questions, just to get the plot moving again. But it can't be? It was. An Albino Monk. Not again thought Sophia, her huge chestnut eyes making Langon's temples feel slightly less grey. It is... Langdon fumbled the key around in his pocket, searching for the answer. But the last time I saw... "Yes, it was in the Da Vinci Code" Sophia finished, even though Langdon was thinking. Never mind he said, I mean thought, "People will by us anyway, Sophie, you know why?" I don't know why Sophie thought "but my father..."

"Yes, I decoded this special message, on this cornflake packet..." Langdon finished, a smile pulling at the corner of his mouth, eminating a heavy sigh, almost grinning as his grey temples creased alluringly, "He's Jesus!"

"Oh my..." Sophie gasped, her large, round eyes fixing on Langon's huge greying head. He really was an attractive man, she thought Yes, he really is

"Um, you know Davy's actually quite enjoying this don't you?"

Yes

Okay sorry about that. A tad more than I thought I'd put into this thread. I must remember to find a way to keep out of these forums and stop annoying people.

And I hope you Da Vinci lovers find a way to purify your souls



Yours bad writingly




Sir David Tetley-Skyflyer

everytime he stays at one, something really bad happens. It's called Dan Brown's writing

Oh how you make me chuckle Davy. You really should take up writing reviews. Of course, if you ever directed such vitriol at my own works, I'd have to have you killed, but there you go. Mafia protected and all that.

I take your point about being better writers though, and Doctor, I concur.

JB

<Added>

As an aside, I've never understood why DVC provokes such extreme reactions in people. I mean, beyond the religious right wing. It's hardly worthy of such attention. It's ok, but that's all in my opinion.

JB

But, unwittingly, Davy, you are striving to be more marketable. Show don't tell, for example, wasn't the be all and end all 100 yrs ago, but over time with the evolution of visual technology the reader wants to be 'shown' everything like they are in film and it's therefore given much more importance.

Trends change and we as writers have to move with them - IMO - if we want to have an audience.

Casey

Aye that's true Casey but I mean that I want to be a better writer, that's why I follow certain rules, but Dan Brown proves that "the industry" would publish pretty much anything if it thought it'd make some blood money on it.

If my first effort at writing a novel was published, no matter how successful it was, even if, inexplicably, it'd sold shed loads like DB, I'd be SO embarrassed because it is very badly written, almost as bad as The DVC. I'd still want to improve, not for any industry or agent, but so I can become a better writer for the reasons outlined before. Mainly to make the reader feel like they are having a unique experience with unique characters, and an interesting, well constructed plot.

JB, I'd never aim that sort of vitriol at you, come on

Thanks Davy.

You know, I think there is an issue here that is being slightly overlooked, but I'm not sure how to illustrate it without sounding like a snob or something. Ok, I'll chance it, but don't shoot me. I don't think DVC's success is all that relative to a money grabbing industry as much as it's a story meeting with the wider populace's, erm, general unfamiliarity with literature. That's the kindest way I can put it.

JB

Oh, dear. I've said this before and been shot down. What's wrong with publishing something there's a market for? If it gets people reading who ain't ever gonna read something we'd consider 'well-written'??

Casey

As an aside, I've never understood why DVC provokes such extreme reactions in people. I mean, beyond the religious right wing. It's hardly worthy of such attention. It's ok, but that's all in my opinion.

Hear hear! It is irritating when publishers spend a ton of money hyping a book but no one can deny that a perfectly staggering number of people voted with their £6.99 that this is what they like. The vitriol is out of all proportion, as it is with Harry Potter, and I think it's sheer jealousy.

DVC wasn't his first, though, was it? His earlier ones only did okay, which is probably a better measure of his merits as a writer.

Emma

I'm sad to say that I honestly think HP did so well for exactly the same reason as the one I illustrated above, and I think the vitriol comes from people who see that. I have been vitriolic myself in the past over both these books, over DVC's cackhanded dealing of myth and history, and HP's plagiarism and tedious writing.

But Emma is ultimately right. These books remain out there, as huge bestselling successes, and love them or hate them, it seems that in real writerly terms, they are only applauded by people who don't have the same levels of quality and industry insight as we do.

Ok, shoot me now.

JB

But Emma is ultimately right. These books remain out there, as huge bestselling successes,

glad you think so, but

it seems that in real writerly terms, they are only applauded by people who don't have the same levels of quality and industry insight as we do.

but this isn't really what I meant. HP and DVC (and I quite like the former, the early ones especially, when she was being edited properly) are getting something right for millions of people - something really basic and important about why humans like fiction. We could all have a look at what they're getting right and learn from it - storytelling? accessible history of art/magic/theology? - even if we then chose to do the same things different ways.

Emma

I think you're spot on, JB. But isn't that the point, we don't write for writers, we write for readers and often - like it or not - there's a difference? I'd be very happy to make a shed of money from readers enjoying my work, regardless of any professional criticism i received.

Casey

Yeah and I have stuck up for JKR before, and I admit that cursed Potter boy and his crazy adventures are my dirty secret when it comes to books I like. But I'm so not jealous of Dan Brown, I promise!

Casey, I'm not shooting you down, I just don't care so much for getting people to read, who otherwise wouldn't. I just want to write good books. Also, I don't see why you can't do both things.



<Added>

I mean stories, not books!

Emma, yes, I do apologise. I did write that and it did look as if I took you to be in agreement with me, but I got two thoughts crossed in the flow, and it wasn't my intention.

Yes, any book that encourages people to read is a tremendously good thing, it's as simple as that. I don't mean to be denigrating about the illiteracy of the general populace, which we have discussed before, but I do still think that's why HP and DVC have done so well in the adult market. People love to talk about these stories, almost in a 'look, I can read way!', a shared experience. DVC made a lot of unelightened people sound very clever at parties. I've seen it firsthand. It's great that they're reading, truly, but it's candy floss for the head, a direct link between social pretension and art, mass marketed for the working classes.

This is only my opinion, and only one slant on it, so I'm not trying to cause an argument, or even say that it's wrong. Rightly or wrongly, it's just my observation, and Casey, you yourself are spot on when you point out that we are writing for readers. It's easy to forget that sometimes.

JB