Old versus new writing

[Suzy]

I was just thinking as I go through the first draft of my WIP, that modern writing is so different from the way books were written before, say sixty or more years ago.

When we write a novel today, we write a little bit like a movie, in a series of scenes with a lot of dialogue and less narrative/prose than before.

I have just finished reading Willa Cather's 'The Song of The Lark', written in 1915. It struck me while reading that this book and many others of the era and earlier, were written with a huge amount of narrative and using third person omniscient to a very large degree. This, these days, would be seen as 'too descriptive' and even called 'info dumping' at times.

The 'rules' these days are that each scene has to have conflict and that it must move the story forward, whereas many of the older books have a lot less dialogue and the narrative is slower. I have feeling that it would have been a lot more challenging to write in this way, as the prose really had to shine and the descriptions had to be extremely well done.

I therefor admire such writers as Willa Cather, Edith Wharton, Mark Twain, Dickens, Tolstoy, to name but a few of my favourite classics, even more than before.

[vrabinec]

You know, it's funny, whenever I read books by those authors, I never felt that the book moved too slowly. Didn't yearn for "conflict" that was missing from some chapter. Now, when I read SOME books of the are like Vanity Fair, I DID want something to happen, but I think that might be because I wasn't familiar with the politics of the day.

[Suzy]

Vanity Fair is one of my favourites too. I love the quirky, irony.

[Suzy]

These days, things have to happen so fast in books. There has to be ACTION all the time, snap, snap, where's the action? But the older books have this wonderful writing that you read just for the prose and yo want to read them slowly just ti stay in that world.

Wish that was still the case.

[vrabinec]

I think someone could do well writing in a style that paints word pictures and strolls the reader along. But you're right, the prose has to be exceptional and the story has to feel like it's moving, even if it's slow. Unfortunately, my prose isn't strong enough to write like that, so I have to resort to blowing shit up.

[Suzy]

Mar 27, 2014 15:58:53 GMT -5 vrabinec said:

I think someone could do well writing in a style that paints word pictures and strolls the reader along. But you're right, the prose has to be exceptional and the story has to feel like it's moving, even if it's slow. Unfortunately, my prose isn't strong enough to write like that, so I have to resort to blowing shit up.

Your prose (what I've seen of it) doesn't exactly stink, Fred.

[Deleted]

Mar 27, 2014 17:04:25 GMT -5 Suzy said:

Mar 27, 2014 15:58:53 GMT -5 vrabinec said:

I think someone could do well writing in a style that paints word pictures and strolls the reader along. But you're right, the prose has to be exceptional and the story has to feel like it's moving, even if it's slow. Unfortunately, my prose isn't strong enough to write like that, so I have to resort to blowing shit up.

Your prose (what I've seen of it) doesn't exactly stink, Fred.

Not sure why my post wasn't all put up, but You've seen Fred's PROSE??   I won't live long enough to read his first book. Alas!

[scdaffron]

I've been thinking about this lately too, partly because I read a similar sentiment in a writing book recently. (I think it was in the context of the author having written something so heavy with description a la Dickens that it was blasted by her writing teacher.)

Realistically, I think now you have to write for a much shorter attention span. The fact that anyone is reading ANY book is just short of a miracle at this point. Books are competing with apps and every other form of distraction. (For the record, personally, I don't even know what Angry Birds actually is...just that people waste a lot of time with it.) The Book Bub stats were telling. The avid book reading audience is getting older. We'd better write a lot before they all die off.

[Daniel]

Mar 27, 2014 15:58:53 GMT -5 vrabinec said:

I think someone could do well writing in a style that paints word pictures and strolls the reader along. But you're right, the prose has to be exceptional and the story has to feel like it's moving, even if it's slow. Unfortunately, my prose isn't strong enough to write like that, so I have to resort to blowing shit up.

I know exactly what you mean. I made a point of blowing something up in my first two books. I've already had two explosion scenes in the third book, and there's at least one more to go. Magical fireball effects are fun to write.

[Daniel]

Mar 27, 2014 19:10:40 GMT -5 scdaffron said:

The Book Bub stats were telling. The avid book reading audience is getting older. We'd better write a lot before they all die off.

That's a good point. It makes me wonder if the "avid reader" age group is floating or static. In other words, do new readers become avid as they reach that age, or are we watching the last avid readers shuffle off to Buffalo?

[Deleted]

Interestingly, I often monitor my immersion in Gardner's "fictive dream" while reading a novel. And in neither case of Willa Cather's novels, did I have any trouble suspending disbelief; I entered the fictive dream quite completely. I think her excellent description and conveyance of thoughts and personalities allowed me to be there, to see it, to hear them. So, good writing, whether fast paced or slow, whether spare or florid, can do the trick if it's well done.

[scdaffron]

Mar 27, 2014 19:20:32 GMT -5 Daniel said:

Mar 27, 2014 19:10:40 GMT -5 scdaffron said:

The Book Bub stats were telling. The avid book reading audience is getting older. We'd better write a lot before they all die off.

That's a good point. It makes me wonder if the "avid reader" age group is floating or static. In other words, do new readers become avid as they reach that age, or are we watching the last avid readers shuffle off to Buffalo?

Methinks they're shuffling...

[Deleted]

I write for a short attention span. Plus, I prefer many of those books as well.

To each her own.

[Deleted]

You're so right, Suzy. I think that's one of my problems as far as selling a lot. I wrote Gastien in 3rd person omni. I don't use a lot of description as far as describing as items etc (as I can't stand to read all that description) but I do a lot of description of the character's mindset, his driving factors, what makes him tick...descriptions of that society in which he lived. That's what appeals to me. I like books that make me think and feel, that maybe change how I see things or types of people.

That is what I prefer to both read and write. There is still an audience for it, but they aren't the type to hand out in chat rooms and on facebook pages talking books for hours. So the challenge is finding them.

Books that are all action and move along fast feel shallow and hurried to me as a reader. That doesn't mean they aren't well written. They just don't make me think about the book for days afterward. I feel rushed and they make me a bit anxious instead of enjoying them. I know from the responses I get from the majority of my readers they like my style...but the challenge is finding more of those readers or getting other readers conditioned to all action to take a chance. Over and over I hear "I've never read a book like this" "I've never had a book make me feel so much". That tells me they took a chance. It seems for most people now "something old" (writing style) is "something new".

We've become a society of people who have been trained not to think or feel too deeply. It's reflected in books, movies, tv. Yet, when something is well-written that DOES make people think and feel, it gets critical acclaim IF it's discovered. Take True Detective on TV. Way, way different than most of the garbage. Boom. What an impact on those who took a chance and watched it.

I would say books that aren't quick action have a lot tougher time breaking out quickly. However, they can be the books that are remembered for years and years IF they catch on. (I'm not saying mine, although I sure do hope so. I am saying books written in this style.)

[Deleted]

The hardest thing for me to adapt to in writing these days is the expectation that you must air-drop the reader into the action in the very first page. I was talking (in actual person!) to a KBer a couple of weeks ago, and she expressed the same sentiment. It's probably because we're both of an age where the books we grew up reading didn't do that - they allowed time for setting a scene and character first (at least a few pages), then introducing the action. The reader didn't mind this; it was expected. It was how you oriented yourself in the fictional universe.

But now, every book seems to require opening with a car chase in progress or some other conflict or tension. I don't always mind that, as a reader, but I don't need it. I'm still happy to get some orientation time up front. Younger readers, however, apparently aren't, and I presume that's why we now have to hit the ground running, regardless of whether it feels appropriate.

[Deleted]

I first noticed this as a reader a few years ago when I was reading one of my favorite books in the world, The Secret Garden, to my twin nieces. I read this book multiple times when I was young and loved it. But, as I was reading it to the girls, I actually found myself skipping around a little to keep the story moving more quickly and keep their attention. It's still a wonderful book, but the pacing back then was more leisurely.

[Deleted]

Apr 19, 2014 11:54:32 GMT -5 @leebee said:

The hardest thing for me to adapt to in writing these days is the expectation that you must air-drop the reader into the action in the very first page. I was talking (in actual person!) to a KBer a couple of weeks ago, and she expressed the same sentiment. It's probably because we're both of an age where the books we grew up reading didn't do that - they allowed time for setting a scene and character first (at least a few pages), then introducing the action. The reader didn't mind this; it was expected. It was how you oriented yourself in the fictional universe.

But now, every book seems to require opening with a car chase in progress or some other conflict or tension. I don't always mind that, as a reader, but I don't need it. I'm still happy to get some orientation time up front. Younger readers, however, apparently aren't, and I presume that's why we now have to hit the ground running, regardless of whether it feels appropriate.

Not only that, and it's not just young readers either.

It seems everything needs to be explained and has to be crystal clear immediately. Heaven forbid you should make the reader think.

Instead of thinking, "What am I missing?" or "This seems inconsistent, but maybe it will all make sense later," the entitled reader will cry foul in reviews: "the plot doesn't make sense" or "it was very confusing because there were more than three characters."

Some writers even go along with these lazy readers and will try to "learn" from these reviews.

Of course, if moola is your first concern — and there's nothing wrong with that — you probably should.

[Deleted]

Apr 20, 2014 12:34:33 GMT -5 @andrew said:

Apr 19, 2014 11:54:32 GMT -5 @leebee said:

The hardest thing for me to adapt to in writing these days is the expectation that you must air-drop the reader into the action in the very first page. I was talking (in actual person!) to a KBer a couple of weeks ago, and she expressed the same sentiment. It's probably because we're both of an age where the books we grew up reading didn't do that - they allowed time for setting a scene and character first (at least a few pages), then introducing the action. The reader didn't mind this; it was expected. It was how you oriented yourself in the fictional universe.

But now, every book seems to require opening with a car chase in progress or some other conflict or tension. I don't always mind that, as a reader, but I don't need it. I'm still happy to get some orientation time up front. Younger readers, however, apparently aren't, and I presume that's why we now have to hit the ground running, regardless of whether it feels appropriate.

Not only that, and it's not just young readers either.

It seems everything needs to be explained and has to be crystal clear immediately. Heaven forbid you should make the reader think.

Instead of thinking, "What am I missing?" or "This seems inconsistent, but maybe it will all make sense later," the entitled reader will cry foul in reviews: "the plot doesn't make sense" or "it was very confusing because there were more than three characters."

Some writers even go along with these lazy readers and will try to "learn" from these reviews.

Of course, if moola is your first concern — and there's nothing wrong with that — you probably should.

MORE THAN THREE CHARACTERS? Do you expect readers to keep a spreadsheet to keep track of them all?

I sure as hell hope that this is not going to be the case with SF/F readers, or my stuff is going to get one-starred to death. My current WIP has, well, a metric shit-ton of characters, and it's not at all crystal clear immediately.

[Becca Mills]

Apr 19, 2014 11:54:32 GMT -5 @leebee said:

The hardest thing for me to adapt to in writing these days is the expectation that you must air-drop the reader into the action in the very first page. I was talking (in actual person!) to a KBer a couple of weeks ago, and she expressed the same sentiment. It's probably because we're both of an age where the books we grew up reading didn't do that - they allowed time for setting a scene and character first (at least a few pages), then introducing the action. The reader didn't mind this; it was expected. It was how you oriented yourself in the fictional universe.

But now, every book seems to require opening with a car chase in progress or some other conflict or tension. I don't always mind that, as a reader, but I don't need it. I'm still happy to get some orientation time up front. Younger readers, however, apparently aren't, and I presume that's why we now have to hit the ground running, regardless of whether it feels appropriate.

I think this is especially true in urban fantasy. Those books tend to open with the kick-ass heroine getting in a fight. I just refuse.

[vrabinec]

You know, I recently rewrote the opening of my WIP to something with more immedate issues at the fore, and I think the book'll be better for it. I'd had it as an exposition scene, but it turned out to be the springboard to the plot. I dunno why it took me so long to recognize it. I've wanted to start the thing with something that would propel the plot out of the gate because that was the common wisdom. I kinda kicked and screamed that it didn't need to be that way, citing the books tuat ease into it, but I think I was in denial because I couldn't figure out a good way to do it. Now that I found that super secret passage that had been hidden from me all this time, it's like I had a rotting tooth fixed. Taught me a lesson. Sometimes you just have to keep searching.