The Sum of Mediocrity-Maybe

[Peg Herring]

Friday’s post on mediocrity garnered a lot of responses, and I have to thank those people for helping me get some perspective on the subject. I was blown away by the depth and understanding you all provided, and I agreed with everybody (and I'm not just being nice!)

However, I still have to judge the entries to the contest, have to respond to those authors with written critiques, and I still can’t tell them precisely what it is they need to fix. Theirs isn’t bad writing, just adequate writing with mediocre results. As several people pointed out, mediocre is, well, medium. Not bad. If all of my samples are mediocre, that isn't surprising. On the Bell Curve that we teachers once followed, it is expected that the vast majority of whatever will lie in the middle of the curve, with the really bad and the really good taking smaller portions on either end. In the last contest I judged, I had one really good entry, one really bad one, and three that were mediocre. I guess that fit my teacher brain better than four with nothing wrong and nothing right, but statistically, both are possible in the overall picture.

Lest anyone think I’m too judgmental, let me stress that I was asked to judge, and I certainly don’t claim that I have found the secret to fresh writing, either. I’m judging as a reader, and I found the samples predictable, the characters much like a hundred other forgettable ones I’ve encountered. Would I read these books if I were stranded in the airport with no other diversion? Probably. Would I remember them the next day? Probably not. And as someone said, that's fine, because people read lots of books. They can't all be JUDE THE OBSCURE.

I spoke with a friend/book reviewer about it this weekend, and we tried to clarify the difference between writing something “different” and writing something “fresh.” Not easy. What we agreed on is that fresh writing isn’t achieved with a gimmick, like making your detective a retired lion tamer or giving her friends that used to be bouncers at a biker club. It isn’t always the hook, though that’s part of it in today’s instant gratification model. And we acknowledged that some established authors get away with mediocrity more easily than newbies do. Hence a practice we’ve all seen: (some) big name authors writing the same book a dozen times or more. Oddly enough, it sells every time. However, the reason they get away with this is because once upon a time, there was something fresh in their work. Now agents, editors, and readers buy their work habitually, getting what they got before and apparently happy with that. We’d all like to be there, so don’t knock it.

What fresh comes down to is the ability to make the reader want to read the next page. And the next. And so on. I read one this weekend like that, one of those late-for-lunch-and-maybe-supper books that you don't want to put down. If someone knew for certain how to do that, and how to teach other people to do it, that person would be a really, really popular guest at writers’ conferences. It’s precisely because it can’t be defined that freshness is such a precious commodity, like beauty, truth, and the appeal of certain celebrities. We want it, we work for it, but a large part of whether we get it or not is up to someone else to judge.

[Peg Herring]

Once again, all is well said above. (And I do remember Neil from Sleuthfest-good to hear from you.) I guess we all wish there were a formula: authors would use it, agents would recognize it, publishers would invest in it, and readers would love it. But then again, everything worthwhile takes work, so why should writing a great book be easy?

[Neil Nyren]

B.R., that's basically right. If there's nothing to get me excited about a book, then there's likely nothing to get a reader excited about it, either -- and the marketplace is just too tough a place to launch a book if I'm not enthused (which isn't to say, necessarily, that some *other* editor might not feel enthused -- that's why there are so many of us). And a "hook" doesn't have to be a "gimmick," of course -- it can be just flat-out terrific writing.

[B.R.Stateham]

Neil--what you're saying then, is we're back to 'the hook." There has to be a compelling draw for a publsiher to buy the novel--and a compelling reason for the reader to read it.

[Neil Nyren]

Peg, I know you were at Sleuthfest, and I don't know if you heard me say this there. The question often comes up at writers' conferences as to what I'm looking for in a ms, and after outlining some specifics, I sometimes note that I send many a manuscript back saying that there is nothing actually wrong with it, that there's no reason not to publish it.... but there's no reason TO publish it, either. They need to give me that reason.

[Jon Loomis]

I'd add two more adjectives to your "different" vs "fresh" short list: "smart" and "complex." As opposed to clever and complicated. I want to read about characters who say and think smart things. Not that they have to talk like physicists or (God help us) English majors, but they have to have interesting insights into human nature and the world around them; they should lead interesting internal lives and be able to talk about them. I'm also not interested in crime stories that are simple-minded good vs. evil morality plays with the same predictable moral outcomes over and over: I want to be implicated both in the crime and its solution; I want to feel some empathy for the killer and the victim, and for my detectives, of course.

[Dana King]

Leonard Bernstein was forever frustarted by his inability to write a hit song. He wrote songs that became standards (several from WEST SIDE STORY come to mind), but never a popular hit. He concluded it's harder than it looks. There's something indefinable about a song that makes it a hit, and it can't be taught. Some people crank them out, and some musicians, who may be superior talents in every other way, can't do it. I suspect writing is much the same.

I sympathize with your struggle to evaluate mediocrity. I belong to a critique group, and review about twenty books a year for a web site. Good writing is easy to work with, though I sometimes put pressure on myself to write a review worthy of the book, if I liked it a lot. Bad writing is also easy to review, and to critique, because specific comments can be made and substantiated. It's the mediocre stuff that's hard. There's nothing "wrong" with it, and many of the things that stick out may be due in large part to personal tastes. Those are the bears to say anything constructive about.