I've heard Terry Pratchett is an excellent writer. He may be on my personal list of writers to check out, but I'd have to go look. I think Nightwatch was recommended to me by someone who knows my tastes.
At the literary journal, these are the standards my faculty editors insist upon, and in general, I agree with them. But this has little to do with popular fiction except in severe cases. What annoys me is an exchange such as this: "I'm hungry," Mark whined. "So," Jeff sneered. "There isn't anything to eat," Mark complained. "You just don't like what we have," Jeff smirked. "Leave me alone," Mark shouted. "No," Jeff yelled. And at this point, I'm so busy laughing at the diaglogue being so poor and the emotional markers being so obvious that I stop reading. I believe that it is the author's job to make the dialogue interesting on it's own without the necessity of those emotional marker tags. An occasional one in my personal reading doesn't bother me, and if the story is well-written in other ways, I might not even notice it, but I think losing the tags completely and relying on the dialogue and action to do the work shows more talent on the part of the writer. Without this, I believe the writer has a place he or she can improve.
I think we all run the risk of losing the reader's interest places, and yes, to much of anything can be overkill, but if the writer is seriously trying to improve his or her craft, then the writer revises and finds another way around the dull parts. With hard work, lost of effort, and loving care, the writer should be able to tell the story without needing the emotional markers or boring the reader. Sometimes, this just takes lots of practice.
Well then you need to edit your post for clarity, because that isn't what you said. You said that all usage of that sort was bad.
Besides, it's not a question of dull. It's a question of pace, of drawing people's attention to particular aspects of a scene and passing over others. This is particularly true of comic writing, but can be applied in other fields. You want the particularly clever bit in the previous paragraph to stand out, so you don't make the following one so ornate and simply have a he said X-ily. It's not that the second paragraph is dull or needs work, but that it needs to be simple, unadorned and straight to the point because that's what the rhythm of the writing requires.
If you have this rule that it is never correct, no matter where it appears, you're going out to mend a leak and leaving your monkey wrench behind. It's a crude tool, but on occasion it's the tool for the job.
Right, so now we are getting to the crux of the matter. If the writer turns around their woeful attribute, they improve their story telling.
Whining, Mark said, "I'm hungry." Jeff (something physical) and sneered (adjective). "So..." Showing his obviously lack of manners, Mark complained, "There isn't anything to eat." ETC
This is a copy editor's job IMO. Addressing the masses, as you are, your point isn't being made well. In fact, you run the risk of being taken literally and having new writers just use the attribute, 'he said' verbatim.
I too have a teaching qualification, and am concerned that in this forum you are unable to check the understanding of the very people you are trying to help. Beta, woman, beta!
At the literary journal, these are the standards my faculty editors insist upon, and in general, I agree with them. But this has little to do with popular fiction except in severe cases. What annoys me is an exchange such as this:
"I'm hungry," Mark whined.
"So," Jeff sneered.
"There isn't anything to eat," Mark complained.
"You just don't like what we have," Jeff smirked.
"Leave me alone," Mark shouted.
"No," Jeff yelled.
And at this point, I'm so busy laughing at the diaglogue being so poor and the emotional markers being so obvious that I stop reading. I believe that it is the author's job to make the dialogue interesting on it's own without the necessity of those emotional marker tags. An occasional one in my personal reading doesn't bother me, and if the story is well-written in other ways, I might not even notice it, but I think losing the tags completely and relying on the dialogue and action to do the work shows more talent on the part of the writer. Without this, I believe the writer has a place he or she can improve.
I think we all run the risk of losing the reader's interest places, and yes, to much of anything can be overkill, but if the writer is seriously trying to improve his or her craft, then the writer revises and finds another way around the dull parts. With hard work, lost of effort, and loving care, the writer should be able to tell the story without needing the emotional markers or boring the reader. Sometimes, this just takes lots of practice.
Reply
Besides, it's not a question of dull. It's a question of pace, of drawing people's attention to particular aspects of a scene and passing over others. This is particularly true of comic writing, but can be applied in other fields. You want the particularly clever bit in the previous paragraph to stand out, so you don't make the following one so ornate and simply have a he said X-ily. It's not that the second paragraph is dull or needs work, but that it needs to be simple, unadorned and straight to the point because that's what the rhythm of the writing requires.
If you have this rule that it is never correct, no matter where it appears, you're going out to mend a leak and leaving your monkey wrench behind. It's a crude tool, but on occasion it's the tool for the job.
Reply
Whining, Mark said, "I'm hungry."
Jeff (something physical) and sneered (adjective). "So..."
Showing his obviously lack of manners, Mark complained, "There isn't anything to eat." ETC
This is a copy editor's job IMO. Addressing the masses, as you are, your point isn't being made well. In fact, you run the risk of being taken literally and having new writers just use the attribute, 'he said' verbatim.
I too have a teaching qualification, and am concerned that in this forum you are unable to check the understanding of the very people you are trying to help. Beta, woman, beta!
Reply
Leave a comment