Support for Indie Authors discussion

I think it's definitely a matter of personal preference. For me, I like reading things that are kind of in between these two. Too much detail gets a little monotonous, but so does not enough. There's a sweet spot that pulls you into the story but also lets you connect on a deeper level with the character(s).

I think a lot of writers make the mistake of thinking they have to be overly eloquent at all times because that's what a writer does, and it ends up looking like a thesaurus threw up in the book. There's middle ground, and that's where the gold is.

I much prefer the second. The first one is sterile in its environment, while the second makes me feel more like I'm in a real place. The first one smacks of purple prose where no sentence can go by without it including an extraneous descriptor.

Both need work. I mean in the second where we've got phrases such as "like a savage voodoo curse" and "The pulsing beat of urgency" are a bit much.

But the second wins with me mostly because we feel the terror without having it shoved down our throat that Cameron is "her violent, abusive husband." We don't need to know that right away. All that's really important is to feel a real and credible terror. The reasons for that terror can wait until they're important to the plot.

As for the second one feeling like "I'm reading an author's skill rather than getting lost in the story" I have to strongly disagree. The first one felt so unnatural in its pronouncement of every personal detail that I felt like the author was reading the story to me like I was a kid. While the second one made me picture the scene, put myself in the character's emotional state.

Much more effective (and transparent).

I write in the way that feels right for the scene, and for the point of the scene. I alternate between the two. When it's important to know the exact feelings and motivation of the character for the given moment, I go "deep POV." When the scene's event is most important, I revert to standard. I don't think I do this consciously, but as I go back over it for edits, it always seems to fit.

E.J. wrote: "I've gotten enough feedback now where I suspect that my first book suffers a bit from a lack of engagement. But I'm not sure about this, as my books have pretty good ratings, and it's easy to misin..."

thanks for posting! it was an instructive article, in spite of its inadequacies--or perhaps b/c the author was willing to put it out there and i'm able to learn from the mistakes.

first, just to be clear, the writer of the article, James, isn't advocating this style for the entire book, but for parts of it and, in this case, the beginning in particular. from everybody else's comments, i think that we all get that we wouldn't write in this style all the time.

as Ken wrote: " I write in the way that feels right for the scene, and for the point of the scene. I alternate between the two."

as far as the inline examples go, i think that the first one is a straw man and James's lengthier example in the article is better than the second one.

Micah wrote: "Both need work. I mean in the second where we've got phrases such as "like a savage voodoo curse" and "The pulsing beat of urgency" are a bit much."

i agree.

E.J. wrote: "It's like I'm reading an author's skill rather than getting lost in the story. I see a lot of this in today's popular books, where the first page of "look inside" is so intense that it's actually too overwhelming. It's like being served dessert first."

i'd agree w/the first sentence; however, it is very important to grab the reader on the first page. in fact, the sequence goes something like this: (1) it's in my genre/reading interest area or got a rec from someone (personal) or website/blogger that I like; (2) like the cover and title; (3) like the blurb; (4) like the first page; (5) buy the book.

E.J. wrote: "including deep POV, which is fairly representative of what I find elsewhere"

really? who's referring to this style as deep POV? interesting how someone thinks that if they put an ever-so-light twist on an old idea and tag it w/a fancy new name that people will think it's a new bright idea. this style is simply getting into your character's head and expressing it.

also, James is coming at it from a romance genre perspective, which is heavily character-driven as opposed to sci-fi or thriller, for example.

I think Micah and Ken nailed it. And Alec added a good point. The writing style has to be appropriate to the scene and the genre. I tend to write more like BB though.
“There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed.”
― Ernest Hemingway

First, both examples were taken out of context and probably were written just to show the POVs. That in itself makes a big difference. In a normal story, I doubt that the author would mention her hair and eye color unless it's at the beginning and he or she wants to introduce her looks early. (And even at that, I doubt they would do both in the same paragraph.)

As for the second example, yes it may be a bit much again when taken out of context but who says the whole book would be written that way. Deep POV doesn't mean it all has to be deep. Some part, like Ken mentioned, could be less shown as not everything has to be depicted. In this example, the author wanted to show her fear mostly but also her environment while staying subtle about the latter.

I think a mixture of both is ideal for me; however, it's all a matter of taste for both the readers and the writers. None is actually bad just like both could be too much (or not enough) depending on, you'll guess it, taste. :P

Hey everyone. Since there's already a thread about this, I'm going to close this one for further comments. Feel free to hop over to the other one and post away: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...