Support for Indie Authors discussion

Something I've been wanting to ask for a while...

Many people say writing in simple sentences is good writing, but...
I actually got feedback from a reader today that my writing was way too simplistic and would read better with a young audience. It is not an unjustified critique; I have thought that myself before.

So what's your opinion? When does writing read as too simple for you? And how do you draw the line between "well depicted" and "unnecessarily convoluted"?

I was raised reading Agatha Christie, who could describe a character's looks in a couple of sentences and you would still make a clear image in your mind of it. How about The Simpsons? We once had a stray dog that looked just like Santa's Helper, and moved exactly the same way; the genius of Groening could capture that in three strokes.

For example, say I want to describe the hero of my novels. I could say, "He's tall and very handsome, with black hair and eyes, pale skin and a tight body. He always wears long black clothes." Are you seeing him in your mind's eye?

But I could say, "Standing at a sliver less than six feet two inches, his countenance is way more beautiful than about the one of any man I've ever seen. His eyes, the color of jet but revealing a slight steely gray shine that will disappear and show again in random patterns, tilt upwards on the outer corner, with his epicanthic folds making me wonder of perhaps a half-Asian ancestry, perhaps a long-lost ancestor from that lineage. His eyebrows--" Are you asleep yet? Because I am! And I haven't even reached half of the description! Sure, it's more complete, but isn't it booooooring? Which of the two descriptions would you like to find in a book?

I think it would be better to discuss what we as authors like to do in our writing, not what we want to see in other people's books.

This is one of those things that is a matter of personal taste. If you enjoy writing long descriptions go for it. If you do not, keep them simple. In one of my novels, I have a description of a character that goes on for about a page and a half (it's meant to be ridiculously long). In at one short story you get no description of the main character at all.

As for the feedback you received, take it with a grain of salt as you would any other feedback. Mull it over. If it feels legit and useful, use it. If it goes against whatever your style is and what you want to accomplish, forget the advice. There are many adults who enjoy simple writing and it's a bit ageist to assume only children would want a book written that way.

It's definitely a tricky thing. Some people revel in detailed descriptions, some like it simple. It might even depend on the situation - if a long description takes the attention away from the scene, I'd say it's harmful. Also, I am the stereotypical man that will look for a dictionary when the mentioned color is not one of the base 32 colors.

As for simple (or not) sentences, I can't be a good judge as I am not a native English speaker and some finer points of the language still elude me. My issue, especially in the beginning, were awfully long sentences.

There will likely be more aspects and I won't be able to tell you much more - not now when I am about to head for the bed. I'll try to think about it and find something that could help you. On the other hand, I am not someone with high demands when it comes to the complexity of the language - again, likely because reading in a second language is different and I am used to a wide array of vocabulary from simple to technical.

Tomas wrote: "I am the stereotypical man that will look for a dictionary when the mentioned color is not one of the base 32 colors."

There are more than eight colors?! My parents were cheap when they bought my crayon pack.

Thank you, Dwayne. As usual, you give really sound advice. And yes, that is something I have been considering for a while. I did the same with my artwork: it was very simple, and adding a bit more ornamentation feels better, but it's a lot more work and something that doesn't come naturally. In short, I am pleased with the results, but not with the effort for them. I guess I'm just lazy =D

So what I'm trying to do is to add a bit more "complication" without falling to the baroque side. I could never live in that country anyway. That's why I want to read the authors' opinion in this topic; how much is okay for them. Yes, for both their writing and reading.

And you might be right. This reader also didn't like first person point of view.

Haru wrote: "This reader also didn't like first person point of view. "

Some readers don't. Yet, some stories demand to be in first person. I use it frequently.

I'm not crazy about stories written in present tense. There are a lot of writers that like to write that way, though. I don't expect them to change just to suit my taste.

I suspect the point here is not the style of your writing but how you digest feedback about it.

I'm on what I call "Writing Craft 3.0" after absorbing and internalizing a couple of major craft improvements to my writing sparked by direct feedback from other authors. (Going to how I handle dialog, punctuation, expressing POV, etc) In fact, I trialing 4.0 with my current book by shortening and multiply my chapters.

In that development, my writing style has not only remained the same, but sharpened.

I have a sparse style of writing, and I try and keep it simple and to the point. I describe what's necessary, leave backgrounds lightly drawn, and go to detail on anything I need the reader's imagination to focus on.

One of my most recent ratings was a DNF by a reader who said,

"I just couldn’t connect with the writing. I saw someone in another review describe it as stylized, and that’s probably as good a description as any. I just didn’t click with this one."

which is entirely fair enough.

I've also got plenty of ratings/reviews by readers who either celebrate the style, or state they loved the book.

My take away on this is that some readers will connect with your style, and others will not connect with it at all.

For me the real questions are as follows.

With regard to your writing style, does it,

[1] Help you be productive. I.e. does it facilitate the transfer of your vision to the page. For me, this is most important as style changes are harder to perform than improving your craft, and if your current style is a natural extension of yourself, than I wouldn't be seeking to do anything but refine it.

[2] Does it work for your genre. My sparse, sharp style works well with an action scene, but I'm not sure it would do well in a romance, or a costume drama...

[3] Does it facilitate the reader's immersion into your story. I read advice by Isaac Asimov decades ago where he suggested good writing (style) was like a plain glass window you could easily see through to the 'action,' beyond it - as opposed to a stained-glass window, which might be very pretty in it's own right, but was obscuring the 'action,' beyond it. Your simple style sounds well aligned to this advice.

If you are finding yourself answering 'yes,' to the above three questions, then, I'd stick with your current style.

Hi Haru
Of the two character descriptions you gave, one is brief, one is florid, but both are direct. Perhaps your reader was expecting something more indirect. Our appearance shapes our lives due to the perceptions other people have of us, and that influences our compensatory behaviour. In order to explore this a little further, please forgive me if I ramble from here on.
If someone always wears long black clothes, are they often mistaken for a priest, or considered by others to be depressing or morbid? Do they keep surprising people when they step out of shadows?
Does their height mean they appear to look down on others, or do they stoop every time they walk through a door, and does this give the impression that they are humble?
Someone's body shape can be implied by the space they occupy and the way they move through it. How does a bird/a lizard/a hippopotamus move? In one word we can sense movement and mass.
Is someone fat (despite tucking their elbows in, there still wasn't room for another to sit beside them), losing weight (cinching in their pants) or gaining weight (can't fasten the top button on their shirt)? We start to get ideas not just of their current state, but their past and future.
How does a character compensate in their behaviour for the impression their appearance makes?
All these things can be crafted into a scene through a series of actions and reactions, so that we not only see the character directly, but also through other people's perceptions, and things implied or inferred by absence. We also see plot movement at the same time, so the story never stands still to make a description, but the details appear through action, and a character's weaknesses may become apparent, which may prepare us for difficulties ahead.
Do we want to observe the character from a distance or from inside their head? An exceptionally tall person might find it hard to find clothes that fit. So are their clothes ill-fitting, or can they afford a good tailor? Are their clothes worn out because they can't afford the tailor they once had? We get a sense of someone's life and the impression they make on other people through the simple action of putting on a tie or pulling at a button thread.
And that is my long winded answer to which kind of description I like to see in a book - an active description.

Interesting thoughts Frank.

(I haven't read all the posts so sorry if I repeat them in my reply)

I think the 'too simple' writing might be what you wrote there: "He's tall and very handsome, with black hair and eyes, pale skin and a tight body.
As someone mentioned in posts above, sometimes being more subtle leaves the writing simple as well as making the readers' minds work. Having your character bend to enter a room, or climb to sit on a chair will tell the people about the heights while adding a more vivid image in their minds. There is nothing wrong with the simplest and direct way, but it may be an idea to alternate your way of describing things from time to time as to keep the readers on alert instead of serving it all on a silver plate. :)

Graeme wrote: "Interesting thoughts Frank."

Thankya, Graeme!

G.G. wrote: "There is nothing wrong with the simplest and direct way, but it may be an idea to alternate your way of describing things from time to time as to keep the readers on alert instead of serving it all on a silver plate. :) ..."

This is good advice too, any repetitive pattern can cause boredom and disengagement.

Tomas: Most people know nothing about color... It's not entirely their fault, though. Just mention "royal blue" and everyone will get a different idea.
Sure, there are many like us. Not every reader is an English major (or EM wannabe), and many who are don't care. Some have English as second language. Some have it as first but they aren't great at it. Some simply care for an interesting story. In fact, one of the best fanfics I've ever read was plagued with spelling mistakes (even silly ones like typing Cat's when it should have said cats), but the story was knee-slapping hilarious and super original, so who cares about the grammar? I suppose some people will and would miss it.

Dwayne: The main character of my novels keeps suffering amnesia bouts, so she can't narrate in anything but first person present. I agree that in many cases it's not needed, but it has its place (not to mention that first person past guarantees the character will survive until the end of the story)

Graeme and Frank: Wow. Just... wow. Between the two of you have written the most amazing and clear "guide to descriptions" I could possibly ask for. I will write your advice down and check it while editing until I remember it by heart. Thank you very much, but more importantly... great job!

C.C.: Thank you! I think it's oversimplified too, but still better than too long and boring.

Thanks Haru,

Very much appreciated. You're completely welcome. I'm glad you found some value in what I wrote.

The vast majority of my own learning as an author has occurred since I joined GR in 2016, and started coming in contact with other authors and readers as well.

We're all learning, we are all on a journey.

Good luck with yours.

Frank makes a lot of excellent points. I like how he explains a process of building an image of a person/object dynamically over a period of time. If I may, I'll try and expand and add some personal notes on that.
I tend not to add too many details, unlees they're necessary to the plot or the character. Sometimes just a few details will give you all that you need to know about a peripheral or secondary character. Other times, those minor details can be used to help the reader suspend disbelief.
When I read, I find myself tuning out when writers get too detailed about certain things like clothing, or food. Even though I'm a hard-core car guy, I don't get too detailed as to what a character drives or rides in beyond naming the model, simply for the sake of realism. Same with guns. Sometimes it's necessary to add extra gun details, as they might be relevant to the character or the plot. Other times, it's only because these particular bad guys would presumably be packing certain guns, so that's what they get.
I like to build my books they way I built my race car. The race car has to have a certain look/Keep the book in a certain style. Only put in stuff that moves the car/only put in stuff that moves the reader or the plot. Keep it simple/Make the plot seem real.

Haru wrote: "Something I've been wanting to ask for a while...

Many people say writing in simple sentences is good writing, but...
I actually got feedback from a reader today that my writing was way too simpl..."

For me, personally, the second description is WAY too boring, and would possibly turn me off from continuing with the book. Some description is good, and even necessary, but I personally like to read (and write) descriptions that give just enough information to let me form the image with my imagination. However, I know a lot of people who want to be told every last detail. Pretty sure my book will never be for them; I just refuse to write things that way, because it bores me.

My male MC is very tall--around 6'9" or so. I found other ways to say that, like having the female MC's have to look way up at him, or having him duck underneath a doorframe while walking. You can describe things indirectly, and it might be a better way of setting a visual.

Phillip wrote: "There are more than eight colors?! My parents were cheap when they bought my crayon pack."
I remember buying a 30-color marker pack as a kid, though for crayons I never saw that. Pencils, 16 or 24 maybe. Still, it was more like the base colors in three to four shades each + some mid-steps like bluish-green, the dark camo green (whatever it's actually called) and so on.

Anyway, it still comes to the point that different people have a different perception of details. Mine is awfully bad. I'd struggle to describe someone I haven't seen for two weeks. The characters I remember the most from books are because of their personalities, choices, or catchphrases more than anything else.

Also, timing matters. I looked at reviews of one book I've read recently and even someone who liked descriptions had enough of them in that case as they distracted from the plot, even in the moments when some action was about to unfold. I've heard tips that it might be good to describe the basics initially and drop some other hints over time when there's a good opportunity to show it organically (random example - a character with long hair running against the wind and the hair gets into his face, or something like that).

Haru,

If your book-writing style is similar to your post, then you have sentence length and balance about right. Style is also good.

Thankya, Haru!
Thankya, Bill!
Can I indulge myself some more?
Any description should, as Bill said, move the reader or the plot and, as Graeme said, "describe what's necessary, leave backgrounds lightly drawn, and go to detail on anything I need the reader's imagination to focus on".
Any description of physical appearance or attributes can only cause the reader to see the character as alien to themselves in some way. The very act of looking at, of picking out details, creates a sense of difference and distance. But when we see how a character sees themselves or how others see them, it connects us to them.
We all value or fear the judgement of others, and we are usually painfully aware of our weaknesses - or comically oblivious to them.
Think of the scene setting song Summer Nights in the film Grease and reflect on how many characters are introduced fully with a single line of a song or a shrug or a nudge. We attach to both central characters quickly through how they each describe the other to their friends and how their friends respond.
A character can observe a detail in their reflection that strikes fear or sadness through them, or vain pride. When they pull on a pair of pants that are too tight, most people will identify with it because we have all grown out of clothes one way or another. But it can suggest that someone is too pressed for time or money to get new clothes, or they have false hopes of regaining their teenage waistline, or they live in denial of the issue or it's root cause. Seemingly inconsequential details add together to produce a full picture of the person and the drives and inhibitions which shape the plot whilst intimately tying us to the character.

What I've been working on in my own writing is making my description give glimpses of what the character looks like without doing the shopping list description. Things like "Her long silver hair lifted in the wind, which plastered the long dress against her slender frame." I don't mention anything but what I want you to envision at that moment by incorporating it into what is happening. 4 or 5 pages later you may discover she has slate gray eyes reminding you a cold winter sky. You can chose to leave many aspects of a description to the reader's imagination, which many readers like. It's like describing a room. Think about how you look at a room when you first enter it. Give the highlights and move on.

As to writing in simple sentences, do what you are comfortable with, keeping in mind what you like to write or read. I'm a Dickens and Michener fan, so my sentences will be more complicated and the words I use are those I use when talking. One key is to remember to mix up the sentences so you have short, medium and a few long ones. If all the sentences are short, most readers will get bored, believing it is too simplistic.

You get to choose the style of writing which is comfortable for you. When using a beta reader, if they dislike your way of writing, you might want to find a couple of others to review the book. If they all give the same or similar feedback, then look at changing it to fit the reader's expectations, because without readers, why are you writing? There are a number of writers who keep their sentences short and to the point using words which are simple, (Mostly thriller) but it must fit the genre of your book. If you are writing romance, it's usually more flowery and descriptive. (note the usually) As everyone said above, you need to find your style of writing and hone it so the reader is satisfied and you enjoy writing it. Hope that helps some.

My opinion is write the way that’s true to you, the way you like to write. Write for you. The right audience will appreciate it. If your aim is to make money within a specific audience, and today’s YA population is that audience, then definitely continue writing the way you are.

Tomas wrote: "Phillip wrote: "There are more than eight colors?! My parents were cheap when they bought my crayon pack."
I remember buying a 30-color marker pack as a kid, though for crayons I never saw that. Pe..."

You make a great point in there. I really enjoy the Jack Reacher novels. I've also enjoyed both of the Tom Cruise/Jack Reacher movies, despite that Tom Cruise does not exactly fit the physical mold of Lee Child's Reacher. What Cruise manages to do is convey Reacher's personality, which we only come to understand by having it trickle-fed to us in small glimpses.

I can honestly read either way. I mean, you don't want to over do it, but you don't want to cut it too short. Think about what works best for you. You can't please everyone.

First off, thank you very much to every one of you. Thank you, Bill, Ben and Felix (yes, that's my current style. But I wrote the book mostly between 2013 and 2016. I was a bit greener back then). Thank you Frank again, B.A., Leah and Alyson.
To all the people in this thread: You haven't just given great advice that will also benefit other people; you've cheered me up in one of the darkest mood moments I have had for a while. There's nothing like having people calling you back up when you have fallen into a pit. I can't express my gratitude.

Now, secondly, while I know my book needs some extra polishing, I can now definitely say this lovely reader had it against me.
She added Twilight to the "Best Books Ever" Listopia list.
Imagine that.
A Twilight fan criticizing an author for childish and sloppy writing. In fact, the other "friend" I was ranting about in the other thread was also a Twilight fan.

Haru wrote: "I can now definitely say this lovely reader had it against me.
She added Twilight to the "Best Books Ever" Listopia list.
Imagine that.
A Twilight fan criticizing an author for childish and sloppy writing."

You're treading upon the red carpet of their fandom! How dare you?!
Remember this moment as something funny on your journey, to improve your mood when writing gets tough.

Hey, I happen to enjoy reading silly fantasy vampire stories like Twilight LOL! I’m an intellectual, but don’t mind venturing off into a world of high school fairytales now and then. I think I can only read them once though. 😂

Leah wrote: "Hey, I happen to enjoy reading silly fantasy vampire stories like Twilight LOL! I’m an intellectual, but don’t mind venturing off into a world of high school fairytales now and then. I think I can ..."

I love classics such as Les Miserables or Crime and Punishment, and I also don't shy away from the occasional guilty-pleasure (even though Twilight is not between them). But one thing is to distinguish between taste and quality perception. I love chick-lit fluff, but I wouldn't put them in a "Best Book Ever" list.

I would put it in a "Favorites list" though, even though it'd probably had terrible ripple effects in my "critical reputation".

Leah wrote: "Hey, I happen to enjoy reading silly fantasy vampire stories like Twilight LOL! I’m an intellectual, but don’t mind venturing off into a world of high school fairytales now and then. I think I can ..."

I've read the Twilight series twice.

Amanda, I wouldn’t exactly put Twilight in The Best Books Ever list either, but it definitely served me as a guilty pleasure. I hear you, though. I'm sure quite a few books I've reviewed and liked have affected my "critical reputation." hehe

Graeme, awwww. I know many people who enjoyed them for the same reasons I said above. They were a fun little escape. If you read them a third time, I won’t hold it against you! Lol

Let's stay on topic, folks.

My personal preference as a reader is ... simple or complex, the writing has to serve the story.

It doesn't really matter which one is used as long as it serves the story and enhances the reading experience. I've loved both the super simple abbreviated style of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. as well as the erudite, clever, witty, parenthetical statement laden prose of Stephen Fry (reference The Liar, or The Hippopotamus). I mean, look at Tolkien's style(s) in Lord of the Rings. He begins the novel in a folksy, pastoral style befitting the small village/country farmer world of the Shire. As the story expands into the high mythic fantasy world of Norse epics, the language transforms into a more elevated and formal style. As the story comes to its close, with the hobbits returning to their home, the language simplifies again back to where it started.

All these styles are valid, all serve to further the mood and temperament of their stories.

Also, certain genres work better with one type of writing or the other. Cozies like the murder mysteries of Agatha Christie or the detective stories of George Simenon or Rex Stout, or indeed journalistic fiction like that of Earnest Hemmingway all fare better with simpler styles.

But then you have writers like China Miéville whose bizarre fiction would just crumble, I think, under simplified prose.

To the story be true, I suppose.

And descriptions ... I prefer a short physical description when new characters are introduced. But the less important the character is, the less detail I want. It's kind of like in a photograph or film...the farther someone is in the background, the blurrier they can be.

But I've seen writers obsessed with describing every character in detail as soon as we meet them. That's not necessary. At best it sounds like the writer is too in love with their own imagination. At worst it sounds like the author is too in love with their own imagination AND we readers get confused, thinking that these new characters are going to be more important than they are. Don't waste my energy on unimportant details. Just give me a general physical description (or not) and then flesh things out as you go along, as greater detail becomes important. There's no immediate rush to give hair color and style, eye color, height, weight, clothing color and style, astrological star sign, size of their shoes, and preference in underarm deodorant as soon as we meet every bit player.

Tomas: Yeah... When I get some positive feedback I'll guess I'll be able to look back and laugh at this. *sigh*

Leah: There's a big difference between
Twilight fan: Twilight rocks! Your writing is childish.
and
Leah: Twilight rocks! Write the way you like to write.


Micah: You're right! I facepalm when authors describe a waiter that only comes once in the story to serve the MC a coffee as wearing a slightly tilted tie sporting a crimson sauce stain over a shirt obviously bought at X store which has a hint of lint on its darkened open neck.

Tomas, yes I agree lol.