Excerpt from my novel

Hey, I'm a newbie doing the one month free thing here but had to comment.

I think you've got movie dialogue disease as well as some misplaced tenses but don't worry, movie dialogue disease can be easily cured. You can tell you've got movie dialogue disease when you imagine the dialogue you're writing is in a film that you see in your mind's eye as opposed to the text that readers imagine from. If I were you I'd go back and review repeating this mantra to myself:  "I'm not going to emulate The Wonder Years narration."

"I realized that was like going out to hunt grizzly with a buck knife but asking your wife which flannel matched  these hunting boots." This analogy needs to be cut because it's cumbersome- also the I realized confuses the reader as the tense jump couldn't be followed. Maybe as the story pans out further the tense jumps become clearer but in that bit there, I was confused as a reader.

I suggest thinking about this little bit of advice/wisdom offered by Orson Scott Card in the preface to Isaac Asimov's Gold-

"...What the American plain style celebrates is the democatic ideal. The writer declares, by making his language as clear and accessible as possible, that he values all readers and wishes to invite them to participate in his conversation. The plain style closes no doors, draws no veils across meaning.

Let's all sit down together and tell our tales, says the Plain Style writer. Let's put on no airs, nobody's impressed with that sort of thing. There's none of us better than any other; only the story itself matters, only the ideas."

Aim for a plain style that is understood and keep in mind that you're writing for the reader. If you're not writing for the reader then it's just masturbation.

You can hate me if you want to but I've learnt that acute critiques are better than none at all... and if anyone thinks this critique is overly nasty then please say so.

Alex

Thanks for the critique, Alex. I imagine if I can't take constructive advice I won't get far in this business.

I see your point about the analogy. It sets the mood but tempo wise it doesn't really fit. I'll work on it. I was trying to evoke an impression of intensity and focus here, I can tell someone will be really busy proofreading my stuff.

I've been told by a few people to get into asimov's work, gettting to that.

too many "I"s. you probably use the word "I" about five times every paragraph. also, near the end you say "your" when you mean "you're". your does not mean the same thing as you're. your if possessive second person whereas you're is a contraction which means "you are" if you plan on writing things i suggest you get these things straight. because nothing is more annoying than when someone doesnt know second grade grammar rules.

im not sure what alex means about the dialogue seeing as there is none. also, though this doesnt really apply here, there is nothing wrong with using language that is not plain. i mean, yeah, it definitely has its benefits and is better than vagueness, but, speaking in metaphors and using wordplay is more than acceptable. unless you think everything written before ernest hemingway was a waste of time.

too, dont write for the reader. write for yourself. when i write, i write things that i want to read. not things i think someone i dont know might want to read. and whats wrong with masturbation? if youre in this to please a crowd its high time you quit or write the da vinci code.

but the critique about the language here is appropriate. i think the images you bring up are kind of bland and boring. if you want this to seem intense dont use the word "intense" in the piece. intense isnt a feeling.

Yeah, I was thinking dialogue because there is a conversation there- it is between the character's frames of mind; thoughts and analysis. Yes, better to call it narration as it comes from the one character. 

" when i write, i write things that i want to read"

Well that's good for you but just like masturbation, it is a self-centered act. To turn masturbation into an entertaining read requires that the act of self first, is essentially shared. A bloke in my writing class yesterday offered up the most long-winded sentences I've ever read in my life and even managed to include thirteen commas in a single sentence. I'm sure he feels it is acceptable and that is what he wants to read but it isn't what I want to read as it just gave me the shits.

"there is nothing wrong with using language that is not plain."

Hmm. Good writing simply aims to elucidate.

There are many styles and uses of grammar that totally break from the rules.  Part of the fun of writing is learning how to break the mold and still hold the readers attention.  Hubert Selby Jr. disregarded all rules of grammar and was still able to write some of the most potent, poetic and influencial stories of American culture.  I do agree that in this particular short, there is no justification for jumbled sentences or awkward tenses.  None of it adds to the story.  But I would have to disagree that ALL writing has to be done like Orson Scott Card suggests - plain style.  American style is NOT plain style.  Some of the most powerful reads are poetic in nature and are a joy to read because though the story may be clear, the style is poetic and continues to delight on each new read.  I love Orson.  His style is very clear and his stories more potent because of their vessel's simplicity.  However, do not make his style the measure by which to judge all writing. 

writing should never be for someone else. that doesnt mean that youre doing it well though. i mean, you need to do your job well in order for other people to want to read it. and if youre not doing it well, it might take a while for you to realize it. but soon you will know what does and does not work. to write for other people makes no sense to me. writing is almost purely an egotistical act. i mean, youre literally writing down words that you believe are important enough for other people to read. of course you hope others will like what you write but you hope they like it because you, initially, do like it. how do you write something and think "i dont like this much, but im positive others will love it." to write for others is to make pornography. just sticking with the masturbatory trend.

as far as writing plainly, hubert selby is a good example. you can basically add most people of the modern and postmodern movement. sometimes words on a page can say much more than just words on a page. to do that takes some inventiveness. try to tell me that shakespeare or milton or tu fu or li po or rimbaud or pound or cummings wrote plainly. true, writing aims to elucidate. but there are far more ways to paint an image tha simply and plainly describing. remember, not all writing should be minimalist in style. literature doesnt begin with hemingway and hamsun. i, too, do enjoy card but to write plainly is not always the best or only way to write.

too, long sentences, absolutely nothing wrong with that. gabriel garcia marquez' autumn of the patriarch is some beautiful prose with sentences that stretch beyond fifty pages at times. joyce, too, can write a sentence. then theres stephen graham jones ten pager in the bird is gone. punctuation and form are for the writer to bend and manipulate in order to better elucidate meaning. a story that simply states "this is this" can be very boring. youre discounting a lot of literature if you only stick to that card blurb.

Hey,

I love the American plain style of Asimov's because it is truly accessible- it communicates to the widest audience possible.

Orson's How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy is a book well worth investing in. Some of his points may seem contradictory but they are not because the heart of the American Plain Style is about communicating without obscuring. At the risk of being branded culturally insensitive, I consider it the ideal bridge, that links all. If English is the language of globalism then the American Plain style is the currency of literary interconnectedness. 

Clear writing does not mean stupidity nor is it a heavy-handed formula: It is all about choosing words that convey succinct meaning as opposed to delivering confusion.  Consider these insights into the style from Card's how to guide.

"The novelty and freshness you bring to the field won't come from the new ideas you think up. Truly new ideas are rare, and usually turn out to be variations on old themes anyway. No, your freshness will come from the way you think, from the person you are; it will inevitably show up in your writing, providing you don't mask it with heavy-handed formulas or cliches."

"We're all of us harvesting crops in lands opened up by the pioneers in our field- Wells, Verne, Merritt, Haggard, Lovecraft, Shelley, Tolkien and many others. But we're none of us confined to the territory they discovered. It's just the starting point. How can we create the literature of the strange if we stay in well-mapped lands?"

Some writers aim to create the strange by utilizing words that obscure meaning. I LOATHE THAT- give me a story where I can understand the words employed and yet mentally twist them to create what I will.

Alex 

words can never obscure meaning if you know the definition.

also, im not saying theres anything wrong with writing plainly and simply. its just important to realize and understand that its not the only way to write. might not even be the best way to write. but that, of course, is about personal preference. trust me, i know what youre talking about when you say plain style and clear writing. i think its hard to confuse what clear writing means.. too, yeah, its very accessible because anyone can read it. that doesnt necessarily mean its simplistic in meaning or depth. you seem really defensive about this issue and i dont understand why. know that people write differently just as people think differently.

forms of writing outside of minimalist or, as you call it, american plain style, are not confusing nor are they aimed at confusing. i wouldnt even consider asimov a very accessible writer to be honest. most of his books dont even really have characters. sure, people do things, but none of his stories are about the people. theyre about forces of movement. take the foundation series, i cant think of one character from that series that was memorable outside of the mule. and mule isnt really even a character. hes more of a superforce in the universe. asimov writes abstract ideas simply but makes for an odd sense of story. i think there are much better examples of plain storytelling than asimov. such as card. his stories are much more accessible and id argue that theyre much better than asimovs. better in almost all ways imaginable. but even he isnt near the top of the list as far as this style goes.

im not really sure what you mean when you say some writers aim to create the strange by utilizing words that obscure meaning. story telling is not really about making things strange. its about making things interesting. twist the words mentally to create what you will? well, that sounds like the result of reading the opposite of clear writing. clear writing clearly paints a scene. ambiguous writing or subtle writing allow the reader greater ability to create the scene in their minds.

and i think those passages quoted from card only really apply to science fiction and fantasy. mostly because writers of those genres very easily fall into cliches of the genre. which makes for very boring writing. i dont think you even need to use this american plain style when writing science fiction or fantasy. and i dont think he says you should. every person writes differently. or at least they should. why write the same as someone else? its boring to copy. hes basically saying to escape the pitfalls of the genre by using your imagination to create every aspect of the world you envision. hes saying dont write like everyone who came before you. build your own path. which is good advice.

Hey,

Maybe I am defensive because to me, it is the ideal style for the goal of being unpretentious and understandable. But do not confuse my continuing this conversation as defensiveness. I want to read considered thoughts on writing and reading while championing this one- for it is this ideal of Plain Style or American Plain Style that makes more sense to me than any other. If there is much more stimulating conversation and insight on writing then I may just join and upgrade to premium membership.

Yes,  I've never read Card say you should write in the American Plain style but he did say of Asimov  ".. this great old man... had shown us all that perfect clarity was, indeed, attainable in our own language."  That's praise.

Now you mention the Mule in Foundation and is not the Mule a character- a truly great character for you to remember him so? Perhaps Foundation is in fact your foundation into Plain Style?

"twist the words mentally to create what you will? well, that sounds like the result of reading the opposite of clear writing. clear writing clearly paints a scene. ambiguous writing or subtle writing allow the reader greater ability to create the scene in their minds. "

I think this conversation has opened my mind to me. This must be my style: Plainly worded with the possibility of embeded meanings for the reader to twist and dig out if they will it.

I prefer the mental exertion of the search for an idea as opposed to the exertion of retrieving a dictionary definition... hmm, now that I ponder it more the idea of a clearly worded story akin to a parable where meaning is ascribed by the reader is my idea of literary perfection. A solid foundation upon which the reader can build/ascribe meaning.

And at the risk of inviting a truckload of criticism, my idea of a hellish writing style is anything that lacks a foundation of clarity... hmm, anything that resembles Derrida!