Nathan Bransford - The Forums

If the book is written in such a way as to make me want to skip, I might as well just not even finish the book.

I don't like skipping unless it's my second read through, I know what's going on, and I'm excited to get to a part I know is coming.

I never skipped a part in Angelology, and if you've read that, you know that means I'm serious about not skipping. That book burned my eyes.

So no. I don't skip. You may miss something important. And if it's not important or necessary...what was it doing there in the first place?

Of course, after some of the fail-bomb books I've read lately (coughredridinghoodcough) it isn't surprising what's getting out there...

Whirlochre wrote:It isn't for the reader to know what's important and what isn't until they get to the end of the book.

Two quick comments.

First, I don't think this gives readers anywhere near the credit they deserve. They absolutely pick up on nuances and meaning all along the reading process, in part because of the archetypal nature of most storytelling that hadn't changed in a couple thousand years.

Second, I don't think this attitude gives the readers anywhere near the respect they deserve. It might not be intended this way, but it sounds dismissive and belittling, like, "Sit down, shut up, read, and I'll tell you when it's okay to find meaning."

Margo wrote:

Whirlochre wrote:It isn't for the reader to know what's important and what isn't until they get to the end of the book.

Two quick comments.

First, I don't think this gives readers anywhere near the credit they deserve. They absolutely pick up on nuances and meaning all along the reading process, in part because of the archetypal nature of most storytelling that hadn't changed in a couple thousand years.

Second, I don't think this attitude gives the readers anywhere near the respect they deserve. It might not be intended this way, but it sounds dismissive and belittling, like, "Sit down, shut up, read, and I'll tell you when it's okay to find meaning."

I think it goes both ways. Readers run from totally missing the finest details, to picking up on every little thing.

But writers also need to be able to write well enough to put the information in there so that the reader doesn't get so bored waiting for it that they want to skip.

I love to put in the tiniest detail that will give it away if you know what to look for. It makes you want to pay attention and read those things. It's like making a cookie trail or dangling carrots. "Hey, you want to read every line because there are flower meanings and nuiances and little things that will make all of this mystery go away if you can make the puzzle fit."

But some writers just wait for big things and cliche plot devices. So your reader gets used to waiting for those. "Oh, it's just a talking scene, nothing here. I'll skip to where the interesting stuff is."

It's your job as a writer to make EVERYTHING interesting. From tea breaks to breaking legs. The entire book is there to entertain, making them sit up and want more.

Margo wrote:

Whirlochre wrote:It isn't for the reader to know what's important and what isn't until they get to the end of the book.

First, I don't think this gives readers anywhere near the credit they deserve. They absolutely pick up on nuances and meaning all along the reading process, in part because of the archetypal nature of most storytelling that hadn't changed in a couple thousand years.

I agree and disagree with this. Many things has changed in the last thousand years and maybe not toward the best direction. Although this should be about a mutual respect. Readers should give a minimal respect for the writer because he / she written the story and the writer should give the respect for the readers because they're taking their time to read his / her work. But readers deserve the same respect what they give. Since they also forget to give any respect to the authors, what do they expect? The general problem is, in the present everyone demands ultra high respect, everyone demands to fulfill their expectations... and for why? Basically for nothing.

Second, I don't think this attitude gives the readers anywhere near the respect they deserve. It might not be intended this way, but it sounds dismissive and belittling, like, "Sit down, shut up, read, and I'll tell you when it's okay to find meaning."

Actually this is how it's always worked, until now. Readers read the novels, enjoyed it or hated it, but they read a story, what writers TOLD them. So, yes, the writer is the one who is TELLING them, when it's okay to find meaning. If it's not okay with the reader, check point #3 below.

What can you read in nowaday reviews? Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm. You failed to fulfill my expectations. First of all, no one asked what your expectations are and you, the reader also never said what the expectations are. Writing is not equal with "reading minds", yet readers believe in it. Second, if you enjoyed the novel, the writer is happy. If you didn't like it by some reason, tell the reasons and next time the writer will try to adapt to it. But using big words, such as; my expectations, give me respect, etc, etc... And when you ask, why should you give any sort of respect if you can't give it? The answer is; just because I deserve it, because mom and dad told me I must be respected, etc, etc... This is the primary sign of spoiled people (I'm speaking in general.).

So, as I see these things:
1.Writers are not fulfilling unknown expectations as we can't read minds and we're also not paraphenomens. Although we can act as a good genii and we're capable to fulfill wishes and demands IF the readers are willing to communicate and tell us what they want to read or don't want to read from us next time. We're always trying to do our best, but we still can't read minds (I wish I could.).
2. Writers are also people and not slaves. Why should we give any respect to some people who can't show a minimal respect, just demanding, demanding, demanding without any true background? We're telling the story to them. If they want it otherwise and want to tell how to do our work... my favorite point comes...
3. If the reader doesn't like when the writer is telling a story as the writer wants, if the reader want to read something which is fulfilling his / her ultra high spoiled demands and want ultimate respect... now, in this case... buy a typewriter or grab a keyboard and write your own story as you want, publish it and wait the respect. Period.

Guardian wrote:3. If the reader doesn't like when the writer is telling a story as the writer wants, if the reader want to read something which is filling his / her ultra high spoiled demands and want ultimate respect... now, buy a typewriter of grab a keyboard and write your own story, publish it and wait the respect. Period.

Amen.

Because then they would see just how hard it is to get all that stuff to work and they would learn just how difficult a good book is to write.

Of course then they would wonder how all the other stuff gets published, too, but I digress... XD

sierramcconnell wrote:Because then they would see just how hard it is to get all that stuff to work and they would learn just how difficult a good book is to write.

Of course then they would wonder how all the other stuff gets published, too, but I digress... XD

My thoughts exactly. Nowadays, many people have a "You must respect me! Respect ME, ME, ME! Or... or I'll hate you!" mania. But in the reality they can't respect others or the work of others at all. They never did. They're just demanding respect from everyone for nothing. So my question; why should the writers respect these people in general? They don't have to. As a writer, our primary responsibility is to provide quality entertainment and to tell stories. We respect those people who is capable to give a basic mutual respect, regardless they like or hate our work. But we don't have to respect people who can't give a mutual respect, but always trying to tell us how to do our job.

Guardian wrote:Since they also forget to give any respect to the authors, what do they expect?

Paying money for our writing isn't respect? Spending time reading our writing when that time could be used for something else isn't respect? What do we expect? Unconditional adoration?

Guardian wrote:So, yes, the writer is the one who is TELLING them, when it's okay to find meaning. If it's not okay with the reader, check point #3 below.

Unless the writer doesn't know what s/he is doing and giving the reader the wrong signals by including meaningless details or not presenting important details in an effective way. It is also belittling of the reader to assume they are not intellectually capable of evaluating meaning on an ongoing basis in real time and have to wait for a writer to say, "Okay, idiot, there's the meaning". Expecting a reader to take it on faith that something has meaning when there is none apparent is like telling an agent, "It's slow for the first 100 pages, but then it picks up, so stick with it."

Guardian wrote:First of all, no one asked what your expectations are and you, the reader also never said what the expectations are.

Actually, there are clear reader expectations for every genre. If a writers fails to learn these or chooses to violate them, only the writer should bear the consequences.

Guardian wrote:1.Writers are not fulfilling unknown expectations...

The expectations are clear if you do some research into your genre and into classical structure.

Guardian wrote:2. Writers are also people and not slaves. Why should we give any respect to some people who can't show a minimal respect, just demanding, demanding, demanding without any true background? We're telling the story to them. If they want it otherwise and want to tell how to do our work... my favorite point comes...

I'd be very interested in knowing where that bitterness toward readers comes from. In many years of writing, I've never had a reader treat me with disrespect - other writers, yes, but not readers. Perhaps this is the reason we have such different opinions of readers - experiences we don't share.

Guardian wrote:3. If the reader doesn't like when the writer is telling a story as the writer wants, if the reader want to read something which is fulfilling his / her ultra high spoiled demands and want ultimate respect... now, in this case... buy a typewriter or grab a keyboard and write your own story as you want, publish it and wait the respect. Period.

The reader doesn't have to become a writer to get what s/he wants. There are plenty of other writers out there who are willing to work with the reader instead of dictating to them.

I gotta say, Guardian, that sometimes I read comments like these and wonder why people are writing for publication instead of keeping it to themselves and dear friends.

Margo wrote:I'd be very interested in knowing where that bitterness toward readers comes from.

From experience, reading reviews, working with people as a writer, etc, etc... Although it's a group of readers, not all of them.

Paying money for our writing isn't respect?

Respect cannot be bought by money, otherwise every rich man would have a faultless reputation. Money and reputation is not the same thing.

The reader doesn't have to become a writer to get what s/he wants. There are plenty of other writers out there who are willing to work with the reader instead of dictating to them.

Now if I want to work with the readers, I would hire them to co-write a novel. I can and I usually cooperate with the readers, but as writing is my job, I'm not working with them. If a reader also want to tell me how to do my job, I show the exit to him. There is a huge difference between cooperation and work. I'm gladly cooperating, listening to them, but I won't work with them. I may write as others demand, but up from that moment that wouldn't be me anymore. You may pretend you're writing like as others demand... but up from that momet, it's not you. It's easy to pretend, but I prefer to be myself instead.

Actually, there are clear reader expectations for every genre. If a writers fails to learn these or chooses to violate them, only the writer should bear the consequences.

That's true, but people used to have double expectation. First, for the genre. I have no problem with it. Second, what they figure out in their itsy-bitsy mind. As I can't read minds, I can't fulfill that, yet some expecting this.

I gotta say, Guardian, that sometimes I read comments like these and wonder why people are writing for publication instead of keeping it to themselves and dear friends.

Because there is always a story to tell. But if I want to listen what should I write, I would head back to the "writer-for-hire" sector. As a writer, it's my job to tell a story. It's my job to write that story. I don't need anyone to tell how to write my very own world and my very own story. I'm gladly listening advices, I usually accepting them, but I don't like when someone is trying to force their own reading ideals into my work, because that would make it trendy, or because the reader believes he knows everything better, then the writer.

Although there my response in the blog sector. You'll see what's my problem with your approach. As always, that doesn't mean I'm right, or wrong. This is how I see things, based on my experience.

Guardian wrote:their itsy-bitsy mind.

Wow, Guardian, if you and the reader were a married couple I'd suggest counseling and possibly a trial separation. How can you write with that opinion of the end user? All those hours producing something for a group of people you find disrespectful and small-minded? That must feel horrible!

Guardian wrote:As a writer, it's my job to tell a story. It's my job to write that story.

But for whom? Yourself alone?

Margo wrote:Wow, Guardian, if you and the reader were a married couple I'd suggest counseling and possibly a trial separation. How can you write with that opinion of the end user? All those hours producing something for a group of people you find disrespectful and small-minded? That must feel horrible!

Sorry. I didn't want to use that word combination on an offensive way. Unfortunately the tone sounded different as it intended to be. So, that's my fault. Again, sorry for this.

Margo wrote:

Guardian wrote:As a writer, it's my job to tell a story. It's my job to write that story.

But for whom? Yourself alone?

No one said that. But I also won't dumb WIPs as few demands, because they demand easy reads as they're lazy to read few more lines. In this case these people are not my target audience and never will be. Period.

Guardian wrote:No one said that. But I also won't dumb things down as few demands, because if I write blue, they want to see green. In this case these people are not my target audience. Period.

So you're talking about a segment of readers rather than readers as a whole. But how large a segment is it to stir that deep a reaction?

Margo wrote:

Guardian wrote:No one said that. But I also won't dumb things down as few demands, because if I write blue, they want to see green. In this case these people are not my target audience. Period.

So you're talking about a segment of readers rather than readers as a whole. But how large a segment is it to stir that deep a reaction?

Yes. I'm talking about this. It depends on the reaction. As my beta readers know, I love harsh and cruel reviews, especially when they're right, otherwise I can't evolve either. But when someone is demanding to dumb a story because the reader is damned lazy, or not willing to use his / her imagination, in that case I must draw the line. So yes, there is a difference between reader and reader. I love readers, I love both negative and positive critiques. But there is one thing what I don't like; lazy people who is blaming the writer (Not me. Any other writer.), because he / she is lazy to read few more lines and judging after ten pages, while others were capable to read the very same work and had no problem with it at all. I'm speaking about this scenario since the beginning.

EDIT. Margo, When you're telling a story, you can write two type of stories; one which is all about heading from point A to point B. Or a bit more complex one, which is heading from point A to point Z. The first one is used to be the straightforward novels; the second is where you must go through all points from A to Z to understand it. But when a reader is demanding to skip few points, because he / she feels it's unnecessary, even without reading it, while it's vital to understand point Z... this is called as impatience. So, how do you want to understand point D or even Z, if you're skipping points B and C, because in your opinion, they're pointless, while they're serving a true purpose in the story? Transitions, passages are the same. You may use the "Beam me up, Scotty" transitions, where your characters are jumping from a town to another in every chapter, like if they would use a teleport, or you're spending few lines to present that transition and your story will be much more believable.

In my opinion, and as always, that doesn't mean I'm right at all...

1. In most cases point A to B novels are very predictable. They're stripping the readers from the joy of exploration. This is when the reader is dictating and with the very same move, it's reducing the creativity of the writer, reducing the world building, the details... so, it's usually eliminate everything what is making a true difference between novel and novel, world and world. Here, the reader doesn't really have to pay attention to the details, remember events, etc, etc... These types of novels are usually using static worlds, where the world exists only from the beginning of the novel to the end of the novel. In this case, when you reach the last sentence, the world stops and it does not exist anymore. I must mention that I also read very good novels from this type, some of them are my personal favorites, but you also can see the difference between this type of novels and the other type.

2. Point A to Z novels are requiring transitions and sometimes seemingly meaningless points that are going to get their true meaning only at the very end of the story (In most cases). This is when the writer is dictating. Here, the writer is capable to use all the tricks what he / she wants to use. On this way, the writer is able to make a real difference between novel and novel, world and world as the writer has a chance to expand the world. But here, the reader must understand all the points from A to Z (In most cases.). This method is creating a much more interactive, living and believable world, what the reader has a chance to explore. Here, you may feel the world has a past, even before you started to read it. And as you reach the last line, the world is not vanishing, but you feel the world stays and lives on even as you departed from the world as you close the book. Of course, here it's the writer's responsibility to make all the points, A-Z faultless and interesting. In this point, I agree with you.

guardian wrote:Of course, here it's the writer's responsibility to make all the points, A-Z faultless and interesting. In this point, I agree with you.

I can't help but believe that if every point from A to Z were interestings, readers wouldn't skip. It's fine if your detail appears meaningless at first. The problem is when you bury that important detail in a pile of other boring information, which are not key to the story.

Remember that writing advice... "Tension on every page" ? Do this, and there will be no skipping. Drop the tension for too long, and your reader's eyes will glaze over. I honestly do not grasp why you wouldn't want to grab your reader by the throat and keep him immersed deeply in your story from beginning to end.

There are creative ways to make every scene interesting. Sprinkle the descriptions through them. Sneak in the details along the story rather than all in a bunch. This doesn't only make the read more enjoyable, it makes your story, as a whole, better. Why would a writer deny himself that pleasure?

Claudie wrote:There are creative ways to make every scene interesting. Sprinkle the descriptions through them. Sneak in the details along the story rather than all in a bunch. This doesn't only make the read more enjoyable, it makes your story, as a whole, better. Why would a writer deny himself that pleasure?

I have to agree with that. I read through the unabridged Les Miserables, which has chapters full of description, but it was all interesting. And while I often skim over passages, I don't skip them. If the description goes on too long without being interesting, I'll skim it to get a sense of it and then pick up with the action.

I don't know that there's anything wrong with skipping, particularly. One person in the forums compared it to sex scenes--and I think sex scenes, done well, should be as important to the story and as engaging as well-done description. But if it's something that makes you uncomfortable, in a sexual way or a violent way (come to think of it, I might have skipped over some graphic torture scenes in books that I didn't want to read), then I think you're showing some trust and faith in the author to say, "Okay, we don't agree on the level of detail you needed to show in this one scene, but I still believe in the story." Because I do know people who would come to one objectionable scene and toss away the book.

It comes down to this: reading a book is a partnership between reader and author. If the best way you can participate in that book is to skip certain passages, then that's fine. As a writer, you hope to write something that everyone will like, but I know that's not possible, and I would much rather hear, "I had to skip a couple passages that were too long/too graphic" than "I got stuck on this one passage and couldn't finish the book."

Claudie wrote:I can't help but believe that if every point from A to Z were interestings, readers wouldn't skip.

Oh, I agree with this, but you can't make every point interesting, at least not on the very-very same level.

It's fine if your detail appears meaningless at first. The problem is when you bury that important detail in a pile of other boring information, which are not key to the story.

I usually love to work with triple twists, where a detail is seems meaningless for the first time, then the reader is getting one of it's meaning, then I add one or more twists to it as the time passes. But sometimes you must bury the important details in a pile (Not between boring and dry information, but between other, meaningful information as well.).

Remember that writing advice... "Tension on every page" ?

Try to add tension to every page when your work is around 1200. It can be done when you're writing 300 pages. But when the work is longer, some pages will lack of tension and actually you can't do anything against it. You can reduce it's numbers, sure, but there won't be a tension on every possible page. It's like figuring out around 1200 smaller twists what you add to each pages. Well... let's rephrase this statement a bit... you can add tension, but there is will be a difference between the level of tension and tension.

Drop the tension for too long, and your reader's eyes will glaze over. I honestly do not grasp why you wouldn't want to grab your reader by the throat and keep him immersed deeply in your story from beginning to end.

No one said that. I'm speaking about the shaded part of this skipping problem. You can grasp the reader from the beginning to the end, but even when you polish each of your points over and over again, there is a great possibility that certain points will be weaker then the others.

There are creative ways to make every scene interesting. Sprinkle the descriptions through them. Sneak in the details along the story rather than all in a bunch. This doesn't only make the read more enjoyable, it makes your story, as a whole, better. Why would a writer deny himself that pleasure?

Oh, I love to play with this all the time, but there is always a difference between scene and scene, chapter and chapter. Personally I work sometimes a bit backward as I always make the first chapter to the weakest of all (That doesn't mean it's actually weak, just weaker comparing to others.), then each of them is becoming stronger and stronger chapter by chapter. With this I can make the last ones to the strongest of all. But even with this method some chapters are becoming weaker then the previous one because of certain elements (i.e.: where after a long dense action chapter, a dramatic, emotional chapter comes.).