Welcome. This blog was started three years ago by four aspiring writers who are now three published authors of novels and short stories (Barbara Elsborg, Dawn Jackson, Arlene Webb) and one multiple award-winning writer (Laurie Green). We blog to keep readers updated on our new releases or other random topics. We hope you enjoy your stay. :] Coffee?

Monday, March 23, 2009

The Enigma of the Industry: Dawn

I picked up a book the other day and wanted to throw it against the wall. (No, I'm not mentioning the name). The same example of bad writing that I've mentioned before stared back at me from this NY Times bestseller's novel. Cliches, wordiness, excessive use of modifiers and the first paragraph had at least, wait, let me count... 10 inactive "was". This is the writer's latest release. They have 61 published novels to their credit, so it's not like they're a beginner.

In three years, you can see the difference in my writing. So why do I see this in a well-seasoned writer's work? To me it's like they aren't even making a conscience effort to write "well," let alone good or great. Since when was it more important to get the story out, than to write a great story? Where do writers cross the line to writing because they need to tell a damn good story and writing because they have deadlines?

Does this happen to every sucessful writer? Why? Damn it. You know they didn't start that way. Is the pressure so high, we can't take a moment to think about what we're penning to paper? Okay, I know that they have deadlines, but come on. We rookies are expected to tighten, control the inactive voice and modifiers. Getting into print demands it. Shouldn't staying in print demand it as well? And don't give me some sappy story about deadlines. Phttttthhhp. You want me to continue buying your books, make a conscience effort to write well like every beginner must.

How do writers who do the above maintain their place as NY Times Bestsellers???

Somebody please explain.

Tell me, Barbara. You know. You have the pressure of the deadline.

No comments: