04 December 2016

Writing the Obvious


by Leigh Lundin

What makes a good writer?
He English good.


We take for granted our favorite authors are good writers. Like a talented musician, an Olympian gymnast, or an Oscar-winning actor, they entertain us on a professional level. We might not always experience a virtuoso performance, but we’re satisfied if we receive our money’s worth.

A few decades ago, I got to know workers in a factory. A supervisor– a portly, prejudiced and petty little man, lucky to have a job at all– complained about managing Portuguese women. Mr Eddy infamously said, “Their English, they don’t speak good.” In office jokes, that morphed into “They don’t English good.” He of the immense girth never understood the giggles behind his back nor grasped the fact the Portuguese senhoras had him well in hand. When the ladies answered the phone, the conversation went like this:
“Is Mr. Eddy ’round?”
“He shore is.”

Of course the man was complaining about the accent while failing technically correct English himself. Both are among the standards by which we judge people’s ability to communicate.

Regarding pastiches, I tend toward a dour viewpoint. Few authors who attempt take-offs of Sherlock Holmes and other great characters reach the high bar in my mind. There are exceptions including Dale Andrews and James Lincoln Warren.

Last month, I read David Lagercrantz’s The Girl in the Spider's Web, a follow-up to Stieg Larsson’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Lagercrantz’s version was… adequate. I couldn’t lay down Larsson’s novels, but while Lagercrantz’s effort was moderately entertaining, it wasn’t unputdownable.

I thought about what we admire in writing. A dozen or more factors may strike us as fine craftsmanship, and we may at various times accept differing conclusions. We may mix-and-match, perhaps appearing contradictory to others but no doubt consistent without our own mind.

Take for instance our own B.K. Stevens’ collection, Her Infinite Variety. I read the first two stories featuring Iphigenia Woodhouse and her professor mother. You will not find characters like them elsewhere. They’re engaging and Mrs Prof Woodhouse, well… She’s the kind of person you’d affectionately delight in unless she was your own mother. Then you’d frantically Google ‘matricide’. In discussing the characters, Bonnie mentions Nero Wolfe, but it’s more complicated than that: Little Harriet plays an Archie Goodwin to Iphigenia, and the formidable Iphigenia plays an Archie to her mother, the professor. If it sounds complicated, it’s simply fun.

Following are a few writing criteria that could appeal to us readers.
Technically Correct
In some ways, this is both the most and least obvious, the English teacher criterion. We don’t notice the mechanics until bad grammar, spelling, or punctuation intrudes upon our consciousness. An author has to do is get the basics right, but a writer like Art Taylor is much more than an English professor.
Character
Jan Grape is able to sketch characters without bogging the reader in descriptions. Most of us enjoy character-driven stories and we tend to remember great characters from Atticus Finch to Hannibal Lector. Mysteries found in Elizabeth Peters’s Amelia Peabody / Ramses series aren’t especially noteworthy, but her characters in the larger storied context are wonderful. As Steve Liskow points out, your character is your brand.
Plot
I admire a clever plot. Gillian Flynn’s Gone Girl and Scott Turow’s Presumed Innocent strike me as clever, clever plots. The versatile John Floyd has dreamed up hundreds of smart plot lines.
Beautiful, Poetic
Moving, Powerful
Descriptive: Visual, Aural (5+ Senses)
Sometimes the writing is so elegant, we follow it instead of the action. Janice Law, for example, uses word art. A personal opinion poll reveals in no particular order: Baudelaire, Willian Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Emily Bronte, John Updike, Vladimir Nabokov, Marcel Proust, David Foster Wallace, William H. Gass, John Steinbeck, Cormac McCarthy, Flannery O’Connor, Thomas Pynchon, William Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway, Dylan Thomas, James Joyce, Jack Kerouac, Thomas Wolfe, Salman Rushdie, Tao Lin, Shirley Jackson, Barbara Kingsolver, Virginia Woolf.
Clever Wording
Clever Wordplay
While the above are noted for their word-smithing, Chaucer and Voltaire are known for misdirection. Voltaire says one thing but means another. Similarly, Chaucer is equally hard to pin down.
I enjoy wonderful wording on a small scale. Erika Jahneke may be disabled, but her writing dances: “Lotta gimps, lotta problems. Nobody I see all day has a leg to stand on.” “Flirtatiousness is not usually considered an independent-living goal.” “As a human being, his best ratings would come if God graded on the curve.”
I find a few mystery writers particularly rewarding in their descriptions: John Lutz, Sue Grafton, Caroline Graham, Brian Freemantle, F. Paul Wilson, Michael Marshall Smith, Dean Koontz, John Grisham, Nelson DeMille, Noah Hawley, Susan Dunlop, Sparkle Hayter, and Anne Perry. Short story specialist Rob Lopresti is another smart, smart word guy.
Descriptively Precise, Accurate
Exact writing is highly valued in technical writing and legal circles, but beyond brain surgery and rocket science, accuracy is critical when baking a cake, sewing a shirt, or building a boat. When it comes to fiction, Michael Crichton comes to mind. Likewise, James Lincoln Warren uses great precision in his historical novels. I also point to our Melissa Yi’s Hope Sze medical series. And then we come to a special case, Brian Thornton. Who else would dare write The Book of Bastards?
Informative
Some authors are known for authentic minutiae, whether historical or relating to some specialized subject such as archeology, glass-blowing, or bell-ringing… or economics like Eve Fisher, spying by David Edgerley Gates, and old Parisian pickpockets by RT Lawton. Our Paul Marks lovingly describes historical Los Angeles and O'Neil De Noux depicts New Orleans much as Jeffrey Deaver paints New York City. The trick is to make the subjects interesting, not bore the reader with useless trivia, but allow an open reader to gather a little knowledge. I’ve written a short story (yes, I know I should submit it sometime) of an actual mystery set in the British Midlands. It’s accurate down to fine details including names, documents, and court testimony.
Funny
Janet Evanovich is known for her humor in her Stephanie Plum series. Likewise our Melodie Campbell writes comedy, combining droll with drama. Barb Goffman writes gentle pieces from absurd situations such as kidnapping a groundhog.
Clever Cultural References
At one time, educated people were well-versed in classical literature. At a minimum, everyone understood the Holy Bible and many had at least a smattering of Greek and Roman mythology. Mention Sisyphus or Cerebus, Scylla or Charybdis, and listeners knew who you were talking about. To be sure, Harry Potter draws upon classic literature and mythology, but these days audiences are more likely to expect pop references.
Clever White Space
You may wonder about this item. This falls in the less-is-more category. While shorter chapters and less dense wording allow text to ‘breathe’, they won’t by themselves mend bad prose. But in this situation, consider Lindsey Davis’ Falco series. In One Virgin Too Many, she has two or three chapters in a row with about the same number of sentences. Why? She uses the technique to portray an intimate seduction scene. Trust me, it works.
Clever Bland
How can bland represent good writing? Most of the previous examples draw attention to the author, especially the beautiful and the cleverly descriptive. The story slows or even stops as the reader ponders the golden words on the page. But a more subtle writer, perhaps self-effacing but certainly disciplined, secrets himself behind the scenes, letting the puppets entertain the audience without making them aware of his (or her) presence. Ideally the story maintains a brisk pace allowing the reader to submerge in the setting among the characters and the plot. Lee Child impresses me as an author who disdains frills; he stands back and lets the action do the talking. That says a lot.

As Julie Andrews or John Coltrane might say, these are a few of my favorite things. What constitutes fine writing in your book?

20 comments:

janice law said...

Nice to be included in this clever roundup of literary virtues.

Art Taylor said...

A fun post here—and thanks for the shout-outs!

O'Neil De Noux said...

Wow. Good posting. Gonna take a little while to absorb it. Have to think on a Sunday morning. Cool.

Paul D. Marks said...

Ditto what Art said, a fun post. And thanks for the mention. I think the ultimate goal of good writing is to entertain however an author gets to that point. I hate to beat the proverbial dead horse, but Dan Brown isn't a good writer, but he tells a good tale.

John Floyd said...

Thanks for the mention, Leigh--this was a fun column.

Dale Andrews said...

Ditto on the "mention!"

It's interesting to watch some writers grow as they mature. Frederic Dannay, a ruthless editor while editor-in-chief of EQMM, famously would edit the phrase "he shrugged his shoulders" to "he shrugged," explaining that there is nothing other than shoulders that can be shrugged. But if you sit down and read The French Powder Mystery, which, written in 1930, is the second novel in the Queen canon, you will, not one third of the way through, find that Ellery "shrugged his shoulders."

So as with all things, in writing we live and we learn!

Robert Lopresti said...

"Clever clever word guy." I'll put tht on my business card.

Leigh Lundin said...

You're welcome, guys, a pleasure. I got to wondering why I particularly liked one book or author over another and I realized I might have an article about why different writing appeals for different reasons.

But you are a clever word guy, Rob. Did you know ABA is one of your biggest fans?

Dale! It's great to see you again!

Eve Fisher said...

Thanks for including me in such great company, Leigh.
How about Tony Hillerman and his regular descriptions of clouds - is that clever bland, informative, descriptive, or was he just doing mushrooms?

Barb Goffman said...

Solid writing to me requires plots to be believable and have no holes. I've read so many books that flow nicely, but after I finish, I realize all the problems with the plot. And it pisses me off.

Solid writing to me also sets the scene without having the scene overwhelm me. For me with setting and description, less is more. (That said, I know many readers enjoy a lot of description.)

Great writing includes characters who come alive off the page, characters who are nuanced and real. When I read books or stories with characters like that, it makes me invigorated to improve my own craft.

Thanks for the post, Leigh, and for mentioning my stories. I love writing funny stories. It's nice to envision making a reader smile.

Melodie Campbell said...

You are charming as well as witty, Leigh, and I am beholden to you!

Leigh Lundin said...

Thank you, ladies.

Janice, you know I admire your characters.

Eve, I've read a lot of Hillerman and I can't recall the clouds, but what a cogent point.

Barb, making characters come alive is the greatest art. I'm torn between plots and characters, but people remember well drawn protagonists.

Thank you, Melodie!

Steve Liskow said...

This covers everything we expect with a minimum of fanfare and a maximum of clarity.
I don't remember ever seeing such a list, and you'd think we'd all have it stuck next to our monitor or keyboard, wouldn't you?

Great post (and thanks for the mention, too ;-)

Jan Grape said...

Really enjoyed reading this post and nodding my head in agreement. I know my stories are not the best plotted but always hope my characters are worthy of rememberance. I have to add that Sara Paretsky writes great characters and great plots. And so does Marcia Muller. Maybe I can manage to do both one day. Thanks for mentioning me in your post.

Jan Grape said...

Really enjoyed reading this post and nodding my head in agreement. I know my stories are not the best plotted but always hope my characters are worthy of rememberance. I have to add that Sara Paretsky writes great characters and great plots. And so does Marcia Muller. Maybe I can manage to do both one day. Thanks for mentioning me in your post.

Leigh Lundin said...

You're welcome, Steve, and thanks too.

Thanks, Jan. I'm not familiar with Muller. I'm inclined to agree about Paretsky, although I recall a reviewer who said she took gender-neutrality a bit too far. And then along came Kathleen Turner and turned that on its head!

A Broad Abroad said...

Johnny-come-lately's sister here.
Apart from a devious plot, clever word-play and well-drawn characters, I love to learn something new, so details of a specific industry, occupation, place, etc. are right up my street. Oh, and please tie up all loose ends.

Melissa Yi said...

Ahh, this is why we love you, Leigh. I'm going to check out some of these authors!
Other things I enjoy: thrilling, thought-provoking, loving stories.

Leigh Lundin said...

ABA, I'm glad you were able to make it. Yes, learning something new is always a nice find.

Melissa, you make a good point. I also enjoy loving relationships. They add a dimension that often rounds out a story.

B.K. Stevens said...

I'm late in responding--I've been traveling for the last few days--but I enjoyed your post, Leigh, and I'm glad you enjoyed the Woodhouse stories. Thanks for mentioning them!