I have two dilemmas to pose to you today and keep this in mind: I ABSOLUTELY WANT YOUR INPUT ON BOTH.
Ready? Great.
Recently a writer friend took the time to read a short story of mine. She enthusiastically enjoyed it and when I asked her what she thought of my style, she replied, "It was entertaining and easy to read." Now, I'm all for the "entertaining" portion of her response. It was the "easy to read" part that irks me. It's not the first time someone has mentioned that my writing is "easy to read".
Why does it irk me, you ask?
Well, I'm not sure if I should take such a statement as a compliment or an insult. When they say "easy to read", does that mean that my writing flows with no obscure thesaurus words to snag your brain on or does it mean that my writing is elementary level like something my twelve-year old daughter might hastily scribble for English class???
There's a big difference there. I certainly don't want to slather my query letters all over the internet if the response is going to be "What a sweet kid" or "Awww, isn't that cute. She's trying to write."
Dilemma #2 is still in the realm of dilemma #1, but resides somewhere on a side street:
Have you ever noticed all the books that end up on Oprah's nightstand are heart-wrenching, soul-searching, Kleenex-consuming epic tales?
I don't write like that. I write for entertainment purposes. When I sit down to read a book or watch a movie, the last thing I want is a good cry. But these are the best-sellers, folks. These are the reasons we have Pulitzers.
Secondly (and this is directed to the fellow writers out there,) have you noticed how established authors can break every steadfast law of writing once they've built a name for themselves? Gone are the days of adhering to the publishers rules of "good writing". Sure! Use all the adverbs you want. Have a field day with dangling participles and head-hopping POV changes.
For an author looking to be signed to a deal for the first time, such offenses are a death sentence.
I do not write stories to stir long-buried emotions or to tackle the crimes of humanity. I offer my readers a fun, adventurous read. Apparently, I'm the only writer on the planet to do so.
So here's my question to you: Is my unique, non-life-altering writing style going to keep me from getting signed or is it going to set me apart from the herd of conforming sheep??
In the writing world, is "unique" a good thing or a bad thing?
Your input on the subject would be greatly appreciated. If you'd like to see a sample of writing for research purposes or otherwise, please see my website under "Creations".
As a reviewer when I use the phrase "easy to read" or some derivtion thereof, it's to clue the reader in that the work flows well in both storyline and use of language. If one works and the other doesn't, I usually look for a way to denote that. When I'm critiquing another writer's work, if I try to be a bit more specific. Hope that helps.
ReplyDeleteUnique is both a good and a bad thing depending on who you ask as well as the degree of uniqueness. It needs to be unique enough to stand out, but commercial enough for the agent/publisher/bookstore to know how to market it.
And, there are actually lots of writers who have a lighthearted take on writing - fun adventures that aren't necessarily life changing. If you ask me, look at any chick lit book and that defines fun adventure that isn't life changing.
That said, yes, Oprah chooses tearjerkers, and those books are often so dark they wouldn't enjoy the sales success they do if she didn't pick them.
Me, I like a good tearjerker now and then. I also write books that I hope are both entertaining and life-changing.
The fact that there are so many writers writing so many different things is what keeps the writing world interesting!
Keep at it! Your success will happen!