How to avoid a badly written story.

[LJH]

The easiest way to avoid a badly written online story is to check the following.

 

Past when it should be passed. Past=history. Passed=movement.

Back when used too often. I turned back. I looked back. I went back.

Look when all the characters look on every line.

Sigh when all characters are sighing right off the page.

Then when used too often.

With where many sentences and paragraphs begin with with.

There was where sentences begin with there was, there were, there are. Telling vs showing.

Could of, would of, instead of could have, would have.

Using anything else instead of he said, she said. For example, he reported, he told him, he remarked. He said has been used forever and is not seen as repetitive by the human brain.

No contractions. I am instead of I'm.

Your instead of you're or you are.

Scene leaps, where the scene or conversation appears unfinished.

Head jumping and POV where several POV's are used by novice or amateur writers and the technique is wrong.

Characters describing themselves in front of a mirror.

Using back story to begin the first chapter.

I was sat, instead of I was sitting.

 

These are just some of the ways I identify a badly written story. Nothing prevents an author from writing badly, and there is no rule that states an author may not right badly. But it's the author's responsibility, especially if he/she is a novice author, to find an editor.

 

I'd love to know what you look for when reading a story. What makes you close the book or exit the story online?

[Aditus]

Explicit ten pages long sex scenes: boring

Repetition of unusual words or phrases: irritating

He said, he said, he said: Who said?: confusing

Whiny characters: personal dislike

Everyone is gay:

The author tries too hard to be 'poetic', sophisticated:

Four names, all starting with 'C': confusing exception: They're quadruples.

 

I don't mind grammatical errors if there aren't too many. It's fun to detect them.

Sometimes people remark, tell etc. Maybe my brain isn't entirely human, but too many 'said' annoy me.

[LJH]

Explicit ten pages long sex scenes: boring

Repetition of unusual words or phrases: irritating

He said, he said, he said: Who said?: confusing

Whiny characters: personal dislike

Everyone is gay:

The author tries too hard to be 'poetic', sophisticated:

Four names, all starting with 'C': confusing exception: They're quadruples.

 

I don't mind grammatical errors if there aren't too many. It's fun to detect them.

Sometimes people remark, tell etc. Maybe my brain isn't entirely human, but too many 'said' annoy me.

Too many saids. I look at it this way, if two people are conversing, as long as I know who is talking then he said/ she said becomes redundant. Too many saids spoil the broth. Naming conventions, you are right. Although I do know of four siblings whose names are Keith, Kitt, katy and kaylin. All K's. Stay away from similar sounding names. Like Mary and Maria in one chapter. Edited January 16, 2014 by LJH

[Daddydavek]

Not enough white space.

 

Most people have a hard time reading dense and very long paragraphs.   If you are not Russian, and your name is not Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, you cannot pull them off.  So avoid them.

[Thorn Wilde]

I think a bit of variation on said can be nice. I think it should mostly be limited to the way things are said, though. Asked, whispered, murmured, muttered, mumbled, shouted, gasped, etc. All perfectly acceptable in my book. Other than that, as a general rule I think variety should be added by way of action tags rather than alternative speech tags. I've seen writers go to any length in order to avoid using 'said', and it looks ridiculous. You get to the point where they're verbing adjectives to use as speech tags and it does not look good. Should definitely be avoided at all cost.

[LJH]

Not enough white space.t

 

Most people have a hard time reading dense and very long paragraphs.   If you are not Russian, and your name is not Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, you cannot pull them off.  So avoid them.[/size]

Or maybe even Gone With the Wind. I's a common mistake used by many novice authors. No breathing space. Just blocks and blocks of narrative. Good one Dave.

[LJH]

I think a bit of variation on said can be nice. I think it should mostly be limited to the way things are said, though. Asked, whispered, murmured, muttered, mumbled, shouted, gasped, etc. All perfectly acceptable in my book. Other than that, as a general rule I think variety should be added by way of action tags rather than alternative speech tags. I've seen writers go to any length in order to avoid using 'said', and it looks ridiculous. You get to the point where they're verbing adjectives to use as speech tags and it does not look good. Should definitely be avoided at all cost.

Well, he said/ she said is called an attribution. It tells the reader who is speaking. The simple said should be the default setting. Some writers are under the impression that said is not creative enough and strain to find ways not to use it. This, to me, is a mistake. Said is almost invisible to the reader. It does its work and stays out of the way. Any substitute causes the reader to do a little more work. In the past, adverbs were used liberally in dialogue; resignedly, optimistically,consideringly...and such grammar is frowned upon today. Don't be hesitant to use said.

 

When a character asks a question, should the attribution be he asked or he said? Some feel that the question mark makes he asked redundant. Still, asked is as invisible as said, so if you wanna use it for variety on occasion, go ahead. Try to not use synonyms like queried or inquired. The other attributions you mention are perfectly acceptable, but try to not repeat them several times on a page. Quoted from Revision and Self-Editing by James Scott Bell.

Edited January 16, 2014 by LJH

[Uziel]

I don't write often but I'm guilty of some of these offenses. Thanks for pointing them out, Louis and Addy:)

[LJH]

I don't write often but I'm guilty of some of these offenses. Thanks for pointing them out, Louis and Addy:)

 

 

My Pleasure, Uziel.  Couldn't resist answering this, especially since you've taken the name of an Angel.  If you have any questions about writing, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Edited January 16, 2014 by LJH

[Gene Splicer PHD]

I don't know what it's called but when authors feel they need to describe how dialogue is delivered:

 

"Look at the deer!" he said excitedly.

 

"Don't tell me what to do!" She said angrily.

 

"I'm really tired", he said tiredly.

 

 

There's an author (not on this site) who does this for every.line.of.dialogue. Drives me nuts, I said, frustratedly.

 

The dialogue is all you need...

[Cia]

The use of a speech tag/said-bookism/attribute with most dialogue is an older writing style. It's fallen into disuse in the recent times where use of narration to set the scene and show who is speaking has become the norm.

 

My pet peeve? Homophones. No, not gay guys who won't get off the phone! I really hate it when folks write and use the wrong one. Sure, it's a basic thing... but drives me nuts. If you want to use a word, you damn well better know the right word. Rein/reign, cereal/serial, complement/compliment, conscience/conscious, morning/mourning, pray/prey, principal/principle, root/route, waist/waste, weigh/way, week/weak... and many, many more! The trouble is that these words aren't 'wrong' except when read in context. There's no way to have a machine or program find these and know that you're using the wrong word.

 

All writers should be readers. Absorption occurs a lot more than one might think when you read a lot. Sure there are a ton of grammar rules, punctuation, writing styles, etc... that you can follow or ignore but if you don't know the words themselves--you have serious problem!

[sat8997]

Technically well-written stories that have no soul. If I can't connect with what I just finished reading five minutes ago in your first chapter, I'm not coming back for the second.  

[joann414]

Imagery.  If  you don't know how to write it, don't!  There's a couple of authors here that I read their writing for their imagery.  It blows me away.  Then, I read those that it seems like an on and on process. 

[LJH]

I don't know what it's called but when authors feel they need to describe how dialogue is delivered:"Look at the deer!" he said excitedly."Don't tell me what to do!" She said angrily."I'm really tired", he said tiredly.There's an author (not on this site) who does this for every.line.of.dialogue. Drives me nuts, I said, frustratedly.The dialogue is all you need...

As I said, writers will strain and stress to find words, mostly adjectives, to explain that delivery. If the dialogue is well written, the reader will get the tone of the delivery. The only attribution should be he said/ she said, add action if any. Use things like murmured, retorted, etc, just as Thorn said in a previous post here.

 

Today's reader can't be bogged down by extra work. He wants to get in and get out of a story. In any case, I believe a story should employ the principle of economizing words. Tell the story in as few words as possible. Adding adjectives to attributions is not economic. Please understand, these are my opinions only. We writers may write the way we want as long as we are aware that there are rules and principles in fiction and as long as we are prepared to take criticism when the rules of the craft are not adhered to.

[comicfan]

Speech patterns in writing. People don't talk alike. Some pause often, others never seem to run out of breath. you will have women who choose certain words over those that men use. Nothing makes me crazier than hearing something you know only a man would say coming out of woman's mouth or the reverse. Men and women rarely choose the same words when talking about the same thing. People need to stop and just people watch and listen to conversations to get that idea. Having all the characters sound alike no matter their age or sex just kills a story for me.

[LJH]

The use of a speech tag/said-bookism/attribute with most dialogue is an older writing style. It's fallen into disuse in the recent times where use of narration to set the scene and show who is speaking has become the norm.

 

My pet peeve? Homophones. No, not gay guys who won't get off the phone! I really hate it when folks write and use the wrong one. Sure, it's a basic thing... but drives me nuts. If you want to use a word, you damn well better know the right word. Rein/reign, cereal/serial, complement/compliment, conscience/conscious, morning/mourning, pray/prey, principal/principle, root/route, waist/waste, weigh/way, week/weak... and many, many more! The trouble is that these words aren't 'wrong' except when read in context. There's no way to have a machine or program find these and know that you're using the wrong word.

 

All writers should be readers. Absorption occurs a lot more than one might think when you read a lot. Sure there are a ton of grammar rules, punctuation, writing styles, etc... that you can follow or ignore but if you don't know the words themselves--you have serious problem!

Homophones. Using the incorrect word, like there/their, irritates the hell out of me. I wonder where the writer was on the day teacher taught that. It's pure laziness. A writer knows there is something wrong with the word but is too lazy to use a dictionary and leaves it for an editor to pick out. This is the reason I won't accept a first draft. It's the same with past/passed. The difference between the two words is huge. They are not related. But writers will insist on writing past as a movement. He past me by. What? Where does this come from I ask myself. Lol. So it's okay to say, He beared all...came clean.

 

Words are the core of any writing, whether it be poetry or an essay or a 60 word flash fiction contest. A flat tyre needs a jack to lift the car in order to change the tyre. Words need a dictionary. All writers should own a dictionary. And not just for show.

[LJH]

Technically well-written stories that have no soul. If I can't connect with what I just finished reading five minutes ago in your first chapter, I'm not coming back for the second.

 

It's all about passion for the subject, characters and the craft. Anyone with an education can write. But writing is a craft with skills that need learning. There are techniques. But a writer with technique and skill, also needs passion to craft a story with soul. It's called deepening. It's easy to identify a story without deepening. It's when an author goes beyond the surface of a story and draws the reader in. James Scott Bell explains it beautifully.

 

http://books.google.co.za/books?id=Vf5TdoD87EwC&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=james+scott+bell+deepening&source=bl&ots=FxaRiweLuO&sig=QeyFWFfSw2llB9yCu4JZ_Tc3NlY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_t_YUtO_I9Ojhgee74GQCQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBQ

[LJH]

Imagery. If you don't know how to write it, don't! There's a couple of authors here that I read their writing for their imagery. It blows me away. Then, I read those that it seems like an on and on process.

 

An author is required to write a sunrise in a way that makes the reader believe s/he is there, in the scene, experiencing that sunrise with the characters. To me, the queen of description is Arandati Roy. Take a look at The God of Small Things, an international bestseller, made into a movie some years back. Look at how she describes images. You will be blown away. Here are just a few of her images:

 

“Perhaps it's true that things can change in a day. That a few dozen hours can affect the outcome of whole lifetimes. And that when they do, those few dozen hours, like the salvaged remains of a burned house---the charred clock, the singed photograph, the scorched furniture---must be resurrected from the ruins and examined. Preserved. Accounted for. Little events, ordinary things, smashed and reconstituted. Imbued with new meaning. Suddenly they become the bleached bones of a story.”

― Arundhati Roy, The God of Small Things

 

He folded his fear into a perfect rose. He held it out in the palm of his hand. She took it from him and put it in her hair.”

― Arundhati Roy, The God of Small Things

 

 

But when they made love he was offended by her eyes. They behaved as though they belonged to someone else. Someone watching. Looking out of the window at the sea. At a boat in the river. Or a passerby in the mist in a hat.

 

He was exasperated because he didn't know what that look meant. He put it somewhere between indifference and despair. He didn’t know that in some places, like the country that Rahel came from, various kinds of despair competed for primacy. And that personal despair could never be desperate enough. That something happened when personal turmoil dropped by at the wayside shrine of the vast, violent, circling, driving, ridiculous, insane, unfeasible, public turmoil of a nation. That Big God howled like a hot wind, and demanded obeisance. Then Small God (cozy and contained, private and limited) came away cauterized, laughing numbly at his own temerity. Inured by the confirmation of his own inconsequence, he became resilient and truly indifferent. Nothing mattered much. Nothing much mattered. And the less it mattered, the less it mattered. It was never important enough. Because Worse Things had happened. In the country that she came from, poised forever between the terror of war and the horror of peace, Worse Things kept happening.

 

So Small God laughed a hollow laugh, and skipped away cheerfully. Like a rich boy in shorts. He whistled, kicked stones. The source of his brittle elation was the relative smallness of his misfortune. He climbed into people’s eyes and became an exasperating expression.”

― Arundhati Roy, The God of Small Things

 

These are such beautiful quotes. Almost makes me wanna cry from the sheer brilliance of it all.

Edited January 17, 2014 by LJH

[LJH]

Speech patterns in writing. People don't talk alike. Some pause often, others never seem to run out of breath. you will have women who choose certain words over those that men use. Nothing makes me crazier than hearing something you know only a man would say coming out of woman's mouth or the reverse. Men and women rarely choose the same words when talking about the same thing. People need to stop and just people watch and listen to conversations to get that idea. Having all the characters sound alike no matter their age or sex just kills a story for me.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with this. I love eavesdropping on conversations at Wimpy or Steers or Mug and Bean. A writer can gain so much from eavesdropping. Norman Mailer did it. Tom Robbins did it. And listen to people speaking on their cell phones, you can't miss that, they speak so loudly for all the world to hear. It's fun. I mean how's this from Alan Rinzler:

 

Yesterday I overheard a young woman on the sidewalk telling her friend goodbye. “I’m going home now to take a shower because I’m dirty,” she said. “I’m a dirty dirty girl.” Girl can be changed to boy lol.

Hmmm. A writer could probably use that line.

- See more at: http://www.alanrinzler.com/blog/2010/05/04/the-writers-toolkit-eavesdropping-for-dialogue/#sthash.IetYnQV6.dpuf

[JamesSavik]

You can't completely avoid a badly written story unless you don't read any at all.

 

Every story you read is a risk.

 

You risk the mundane, the melodramatic, the hysterical or the polemic.

 

You risk the cracked grammar or the whacked usage.

 

You risk characters that you don't care about or characters you do care about being abused.

 

You risk great drama or a dramatic train wreck.

 

Without the risk you miss the great and the mediocre.

[LJH]

You can't completely avoid a badly written story unless you don't read any at all.

 

Every story you read is a risk.

 

You risk the mundane, the melodramatic, the hysterical or the polemic.

 

You risk the cracked grammar or the whacked usage.

 

You risk characters that you don't care about or characters you do care about being abused.

 

You risk great drama or a dramatic train wreck.

 

Without the risk you miss the great and the mediocre.

 

Sure.  I agree.  It's like refusing to take a calculated risk in life, you will never know if the outcome will ever be successful because you didn't take the risk. 

 

But what is lacking in your response is what the reader wants.  A reader buys a book because he wants it to be flawless.  He wants the writing to hum.  He knows the book is well written because the critics have applauded.  Millions of readers have applauded.  He buys the book.  To him there is nothing to applaud.  He wants something better.  He took the risk and found it mediocre instead of fantastic.  Well, us writers can't please everybody.  You are right it's the risk that he took in purchasing the book and he was let down.

 

Readers exist who refuse to take the risks you mention.  They don't want to read a dramatic train wreck, the mediocre, characters they couldn't care less about, cracked grammar and whacked usage, the melodramatic, the hysterical or the polemic.  They want the best.  That's why they read.  Readers are not stupid.  They know when the writing is flawed, and these are the readers who will not pick up another book by that writer.  This is fact.  They are not prepared to risk.  They do not want to read about characters who are just anybody.

 

So what do they want? According to James N Frey, this is what this type of reader wants:

 

  They want to read about interesting somebody's, characters capable of evoking  some measure of emotional response.  They demand that characters be more handsome or ugly, ruthless or noble, vengeful or forgiving, brave or cowardly, and so on, than real people are.  Homo fictus has hotter passions and colder anger; he travels more, fights more, loves more, changes more, and has more sex. Lots more sex.  Homo fictus has more of everything. Even if he is plain, dull and boring, he'll be more extraordinary in his plainness, dullness and boringness than his real life counterparts.

 

Characters with stature, flair and presence.  Memorable characters.  Vulnerable and larger than life. 

 

They will not risk reading any other kind of material. But it doesn't mean that because they do not want to take the risk that they don't read at all.  Oh no.  All I am saying is, when a story is badly written, this type of reader will never return to that author. 

 

I don't understand how you could risk a great book with all the ingredients like a classic, or a known masterpiece with great drama and wonderful English.  Instead of the risk, I would say we should cherrish them and read them over and over again.  To me, a classic can never be a risk. 

 

And you are correct.  Contemporary novels by contemporary authors, online stories and self published books do contain the risks you speak of. 

Edited January 17, 2014 by LJH

[Graeme]

I think a bit of variation on said can be nice. I think it should mostly be limited to the way things are said, though. Asked, whispered, murmured, muttered, mumbled, shouted, gasped, etc. All perfectly acceptable in my book. Other than that, as a general rule I think variety should be added by way of action tags rather than alternative speech tags. I've seen writers go to any length in order to avoid using 'said', and it looks ridiculous. You get to the point where they're verbing adjectives to use as speech tags and it does not look good. Should definitely be avoided at all cost.

 

Occasional variation is good and sometime necessary. I can't think of a way to indicate that something is muttered/whispered without varying from "said", using adverbs ("said quietly") or excessive narration. Shouted is a little easier. The use of an exclamation point, the sparing use of all caps, or using italics are ways to indicate shouting without explicitly calling it out. I find using "said" instead of "asked" when it's a question grating.

 

I've noticed that I tend to try to avoid attribution as much as I can. Instead, I include narrative to indicate who is speaking, using the convention that the person being mentioned in the narration is the person doing the dialogue.

 

Graeme sat down. "It's time I did some more writing."

 

Janine looked up from her book. "About time. I'm running out of things to read."

 

Not enough white space.

 

Most people have a hard time reading dense and very long paragraphs.   If you are not Russian, and your name is not Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, you cannot pull them off.  So avoid them.

 

This is a big killer for me. My eyes are not as strong as they were when I was younger, and having too much text without whitespace makes it hard for me to read. This is the number one reason for me to stop reading at the moment.

 

I don't know what it's called but when authors feel they need to describe how dialogue is delivered:

 

"Look at the deer!" he said excitedly.

 

"Don't tell me what to do!" She said angrily.

 

"I'm really tired", he said tiredly.

 

 

There's an author (not on this site) who does this for every.line.of.dialogue. Drives me nuts, I said, frustratedly.

 

The dialogue is all you need...

 

Excessive use I agree with. I have a book on writing at home where the author agrees with what you're saying, but points out there are times it's necessary when the dialogue doesn't match the intended emotion.

 

"I gave that bastard the best years of my life," she said proudly.

 

Used correctly, the adverbs can make a difference. It's over-use that dulls the reader's mind.

 

Technically well-written stories that have no soul. If I can't connect with what I just finished reading five minutes ago in your first chapter, I'm not coming back for the second.  

 

The number two killer for me. If I don't find a story interesting, I give up. A poor start can keep me interested if there is a promise of something interesting to come, but if the first few pages of a story contain nothing to grab my attention, and there's nothing else to entice me (like the story blurb or an interesting title), I'll give up.

 

It doesn't matter if the story is well-written or not -- I don't really care too much about that. For me, I read a story to escape into another world. If I find that world uninteresting, I escape back out to real-life....

[Fishwings]

This by me: https://www.gayauthors.org/forums/blog/279/entry-13363-7-common-writing-fckups/

 

This by Libby Drew: https://www.gayauthors.org/forums/blog/258/entry-13208-wacky-wednesday-dont-leave-your-readers-deaf-and-blind/

 

This by Cia: https://www.gayauthors.org/forums/blog/258/entry-12265-tip-thursday-said-bookisms/

 

And like a million other things

[rustle]

Repetitive use of the same word, unless it's an article or conjunction, sears the same spot in my brain, like a lover who keeps rubbing the same spot until it's raw, and I just want to scream, "Move it around, damn it!"

 

The example above, "'Look at the deer,' he said excitedly," is a great example of telling, not showing. Most times a third-person narrator describes feelings, there's room for a rewrite. "'Look at the deer,' he said, bouncing in his seat." Third-person narration should focus on that which can be experienced by our senses five - actions and images. What remains is surmise or clairvoyance, better revealed through dialogue. The narrator shows, the characters tell.

 

Bad grammar. 'nuff said

 

Having said all the above, though, there are writers who can stand every rule on its head, and still make a masterwork, using chaos to craft a style.

Edited January 18, 2014 by rustle

[Aditus]

Having said all the above, though, there are writers who can stand every rule on its head, and still make a masterwork, using chaos to craft a style.

Yes!