Mediocrity

[Peg Herring]

I'm judging a contest again, and this one has a new result, at least for me. All the entries are fine. Good. Each has its moments. Each is fairly error free and nicely formatted. And none of them created even a spark of desire in me to read more than the sample.

This is what agents and editors must face every day, in fact many, many times every day. There's nothing wrong with the submission, but there's nothing intriguing about it, either. You know the story from the first few pages, know what the plot line is, even the subplots in many cases, and can go so far as to say where the final showdown will take place, who it will involve, and what the end result will be. Reading the rest of such an MS would be more of a chore than an adventure, like filling in the spaces on a crossword puzzle designed for ten-year-olds.

I haven't yet decided how to "grade" the entries. Judges are supposed to comment at length to give the writers an idea of what to work on, but how do you work on mediocrity? What's wrong, at least in my view, isn't what they've done, it's that we don't really need another J.D. Robb or Charlaine Harris. They're pumping them out pretty regularly, and there are dozens who are just as good already on the shelves as well.

I'm glad for the experience, though. Putting myself in the place of an agent/editor/reader in the business helps me see more clearly what they must be looking for: that fresh idea, that irresistible character, that writing style that grabs you and won't let go.

Now go ye, and write like that.

[Benjamin Sobieck]

There needs to be more mediocre writers. Really.

If everyone who picked up a pen turned out to be a genius, the value of everyone's writings would be nil. More crappy writers + fewer great writers = better paid great writers. If diamonds flowed like water, we'd use quartz on engagement rings.

The problem is some of the crap seeps through the cheesecloth at the publishing houses. That devalues the work of the writers who deserve to get paid. We (meaning the talented authors on this forum) need mediocre writers more than ever. We don't need them, however, to get paid.

[B.R.Stateham]

Andrew, I agree 100% with what you said. Well done.

There are no new stories to tell. There are no new plots. It's in how well it is done which separates the wheat from the chaff.

[Andrew Kent]

I think there is something in this about what we as humans expect and respond to. Dramatic formulas stretch back thousands of years, and many are repeated by authors again and again, but weakly written or tepidly revealed or poorly structured, they leave us cold. Shakespeare rewrote old plays many times, but his are timeless while the predecessors are forgotten. Why? He stitched together language, pacing, character, and drama in a way that provided the brain with the right stimuli at the right time, in the right order. Good storytellers know how to leave breadcrumb trails, when to spook, when to pull back and let the reader breathe, when to excite, and how to write a climax that is coherent, brisk, and rewarding. The recipe may contain all the ingredients, but how the meal is prepared and served can make all the difference.

[Jon Loomis]

But in the arts "normal" is substandard, right? I mean, assuming the standard is some kind of excellence.

[Dana King]

There's one point that's been overlooked: mediocrity is normal. It's what most of everything is. "Mediocre has someone come to mean "substandard," when what it really means is "ordinary." This doesn't excuse why so many mediocre books get published, but surely accounts for why Peg is seeing so many mediocre submissions. It's because most stories--songs, symphonies, paintings, cabinets, haircuts, car washes, you name it--are mediocre.

[Clair Dickson]

I hate stories that build slowly. If I want everyday dialogue and random musings, I'll sit and listen to my alternative high schools students on a Wednesday (they've already talked about any parties, but haven't planned the weekend. It's mundane, and frankly boring.)

"Bad" is fairly subjective. Some people love Sherlock Holmes and Agatha Christie. Some people love Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett. Some love both, some neither.

Agents and editors look for something they can sell. Just because I wouldn't buy it (like Twilight) doesn't mean that others won't.

Now, to address the mediocrity Peg mentioned. It's very easy to write characters without flavor. There's plenty of authors who write "Good" books without writing great ones. They keep writing and keep getting books published because people read them. People also go see bad movies. Sometimes, it's fun to watch a bad movie. (Sometimes I want those two hours of my life back.) But writing mediocre anything won't guarantee publication. I could be wrong, but chances are, most of the writers now who are just good or even mediocre started with a set of characters or a plot that was new, interesting, and appealing to not just an agent, but an editor and to readers. (I don't know about the rest of you, but it's a little easy to get complacent when you know you'll be forgiven based on past performance.)

Often a story can get by with either a mediocre set of characters but a compelling or appealing plot. Or an fascinating character in a routine plot. But to have both is where the train goes off the tracks. It's when it becomes the same-old-same-old.

Lastly, Peg, I agree that critically reading anther's work can allow for the most profound insight into one's own writing. I learned so much from beta-reading another writer's novel. Made my novel, and my shorts, better, I think.

[I. J. Parker]

All true about the familiar formulas, but not all editors (or agents) react the same way. What may do nothing for some, may be the very thing someone else loves.
As for the best advice to give aspiring writers: Go in with credentials and the very best version of the book you can produce.

[Jon Loomis]

The problem, I think, is that different doesn't necessarily sell. My first novel got rejected by a lot of agents and editors who found the plot too quirky ("he doesn't solve the crime" was a complaint I got a couple of times), the characters too "out there," the setting too far from mainstream culture, etc., etc. Editors in particular pay lip service to the notion that they're looking for work that's truly original, but where the rubber meets the road they tend to go conservative and push the book that replicates what they know to be a winning formula. Tthe fact that so much of what's on the shelves is so alike is no accident--it's partly a matter of shared taste among editors, I suppose, but it's mostly about going with what you know, and what's a safe bet commercially. Beginning writers tend to emulate what they read, particularly if it's "successful": if you're investing years of your life in writing a book, you obviously want it to sell--so for writers and editors there's a lot of risk in straying from the beaten path. I think readers, too, tend to gravitate toward the tried and true--there's comfort in familiar formulas and predictable outcomes. We talk about wanting originality, but when we actually get it we often find it difficult or unsatisfying.

[B.R.Stateham]

There is a vicious trap in the daily grind of reading submissions. So many are read of ordinary quality that the 'hook' needed to capture your interest becomes increasingly more difficult to obtain.

Some excellent books start slow, build slow, and have a rousing conclusion. But you rarely find them these days. We've flip-flopped this technique. We've got to hit you right between the eyes with a brick or sledge-hammer to grab your attentioin (and I'm not meaning YOU personally) and if we don't---hello rejected slush-pile!