When Bad Writing Glares

In my previous essay, "The Egoless Writer," I talk about enduring criticism, but I don't actually mention what makes for good fiction or even good writing in general. A popular misconception about writing is that it's easy to do - and that's partly right. Anyone can write, but not everyone can write well, and fewer still can write material that a publisher will buy. So with that in mind let's start with what makes strong writing. I'll handle fiction and perhaps genre fiction in separate essays. Experienced and professional writers may no doubt recognize what I say and nod sagely -- or shoot me with NERF guns if they see me at a convention.

I look for four key items when I read for critique or as an editor. They form the foundation of marketable writing and making errors in these is a fast path to rejection. Luckily, any such error glares out of the writing to the trained eye. And being the clever sort that I am, I use the word "glares" as a mnemonic for the four points of good writing.

"Glares" breaks down to:

Grammar

LAnguage

REsearch

Spelling

Let's look at these individually.

Grammar

Naturally I don't expect people to know all the details of English grammar, nor be able to chart each sentence on those annoying diagrams we had to draw in the school. However I do expect knowledge of the basics - that a subject and a verb need to go together to form a sentence. That an adjective describes a noun, and an adverb describes a verb. That an interrogative ends with a bloody question mark (you'd be surprised at how many people miss this one).

It's important to understand the rules before you go about breaking them. In fencing a new student first learns four basic parries (parry four, six, seven and eight). Then along comes Fencer X, who sees a more experienced student perform a successful secunde. The defender's foil turns as it parries until it points straight down, then flicks up to catch the now former attacker in the chest. Essentially, the experienced student has broken the rules of parry and counter to score the touch. Fencer X decides he doesn't need to learn these silly numbers to become good - he just use the secunde for his fighting "style." And then walks off the strip, losing five points to zero and wondering what the hell happened.

Cormac McCarthy (The Road, No Country for Old Men) shows how the rules of grammar can be effectively broken. He gets away with it because he has the experience and command of his abilities to know when to do so. New writers should not expect to be so well received. Some hide behind the banner of "style" but that doesn't get your work sold. Sloppy grammar makes a good story look bad and a bad story painful to read.

It's always best to have a copy of Strunk & White's Elements of Style at your writing desk. Furthermore you can supplement it with Margaret Shurtzer's The Elements of Grammar. It does not hurt to have such resources at your disposal - better to have it and not need it.

Language

This is more subtle than grammar, but flaws here still catch the reader's eye. It's important to use grammar correctly, but it's also vital to use the right words effectively. For example, saying "Paul ran quickly," is correct according to the rules of grammar, but it's agreed that an adverb is a weak word. Paul instead could have "sprinted," "bolted," or even "fled." Each of those words has a different connotation and image associated with it.

To use another fencing analogy, one does not parry an attack with the tip of the blade, also known as the weak part. The best defense is where the strong part of the weapon, closer to the hilt, comes into contact the weak part of his opponent's blade. This gives the defender leverage to move the attacker's blade aside and counter to score the touch.

Likewise, writers should use strong words in lieu of weak ones. Conveying the proper context is vital in writing, and the wrong word or use of words can destroy not only a writer's intended imagery, but also his credibility.

Sometimes a fencer finds he must do more than just a parry to get the opening he needs to score. A flick of the wrist is all that's needed to move the tip into position; a miniscule circle. It's called a doublet, and if the circle's too big it's an opening for an attack. Too small and it's easily countered. An expert fencer uses just the right amount of motion to get the job done. The same holds true for writers. It's equally important that you be efficient in your word choice as well. Strong prose does not stand out if it's lost in a sea of verbosity. Some writers might say "use as few words as possible," but that's not entirely accurate. Brevity can also work against you. Writers must find balance between the two, choosing the words they put on the page with care.

Research

This should go without saying, but I've seen too many people raise their hands in the air and cry out, "But it's fiction!" Never do this. This has become the cry of the weak writer - the type of person who insists that it's okay to put a silencer on a revolver, and even if it isn't feasible, who's going to notice?

A colleague of mine who writes mysteries and crime fiction once said, "Guns, computers and cars; if you don't get your facts straight on these, your audience will be all over you for it." And it's true. When your book hits the shelves it will find its way to a reader who knows more about a particular subject than you. Whether or not they actually do is unimportant, but chances are they're going to call you on it anyway. Make sure you remember the Rules of the Egoless Writer when this happens. Consider the following gaffes:

A custom built computer without a hard drive circa 2004 and running off floppy disks. (Technologically unfeasible)

An English family that would take vacations in Berlin in 1930. (Almost impossible due to Germany's Depression and Hilter's rise to power)

A primitive hunter/gatherer culture that considers forty a young age (despite the fact that they should be lucky to live that long).

All of these things could have been avoided with five minutes of research. And in this day and age with many local libraries accessible online supporting book exchange programs, writers have fewer and fewer excuses to not do their homework.

However research is a double-edged sword. Obviously not doing enough hamstrings a writer's credibility, but doing too much can induce type of writer's block. It's a self-made paranoia, not feeling that one's research is up to snuff. In addition too much research can turn a segment of prose into an essay that says, "Look at how much I know about this!" This is fine if a writer is working on a research piece, but it makes that spy adventure rather boring.

Consider the fencer as a student of body language. He has to study how his opponent moves in order to be able to predict attacks and defend himself. However, that alone is not enough. The fencer must act, else he loses the match or worse is carded for not doing anything.

One tactic for dealing with research is to save it for when you're doing the first rewrite. The reasoning behind this is that you may not know the story at large to begin with, so you may not know what you need to research before hand. However it might help to do some broad research before you start if you have a general idea of what material you might need (e.g 15^th century Germany). What's important is that you do it in the first place.

Spelling

This should also go without saying, but again, it's surprising how often manuscripts are submitted without having been proofread. Even a simple run with a spellchecker can take care of most of the errors that would cause a manuscript to be rejected. It's another "no excuses" item.

A misspelled word is a bruise on the page, much like a bruise on the body is a sign that a fencer has a hole in his defense. Sometimes it's due to laziness, but other times ignorance plays a factor. It's a novice's misconception that an editor will correct your mistakes in a manuscript. In truth, the editor's role is to take an already clean manuscript and help you polish it to a mirror shine.

Running the spellchecker is a good start in catching errors, as is keeping both Strunk & White's Elements of Style and a good dictionary by your side. However, it doesn't catch everything. A slip of the finger can turn "home" into "hone," and without close scrutiny one can't prevent the bruise from forming. Situations like these are what I call "phantom words," wherein the spelling is right, but the word itself is wrong. The best way to catch them is to read the manuscript out loud, preferably a little slower than you would for, say, a reading. In doing so, you'll find other mistakes, thus closing the holes in your work.

Faults in any one of these four "cornerstones" is a sure path to rejection if they dominate the manuscript. Mistakes in more than one act as a force multiplier. Part of the key to success as a writer (regardless of the material) is make the prose as clean and error free as possible. Good proofreading and self-editing skills go a long way towards this end.

In the next part of this series, we'll discuss what I think makes for strong fiction writing. Stay tuned.