Didn't you used to...?

[mrissa]

I've run into a confusing phenomenon several times over the last year. It's not confusing when writers screw things up in their books -- writers are as sadly fallible as the rest of humanity. But sometimes I run across a writer who has changed length or sub-genre and seems to have lost a solid skill in the transition.

I can see why someone who knew how to pace a novel might not know how to pace a short story, or vice versa. But when someone's dialog gets clunky and weird in a novel, and it was crisp and reasonable in multiple short stories, I'm confused. Similarly, I can see where one might think high fantasy required or at least benefitted from a different kind of description than urban fantasy or magical realism -- but why would the pacing go south during the switch? I can see where someone might overthink vocabulary and sentence structure when switching from adult to YA, but where would the total lack of character development come in?

It's a little daunting as a reader, wondering where someone is going to just suddenly stop doing something next.

Comments

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I wasn't sure where the Finland thing came from, since I haven't read the work in question.

[angeyja.livejournal.com]

I've only read one of yours, at least so far.

I am sorry that was obscure. And Finland was about Crusie btw. These two are pretty different.

I am curious about how prolific Ann is. I am midway through Dead God btw which is written from the male POV. It has SF and I can see the action elements that got more fully untilized in later works. There is a strong element of things I remember from romances. I am prbably seeing it better now because I am actively examining the book as I read. (Not really my preferred raeding style.)

I should probably mention here I first came across here reading Gran's harlequins when I was pretty young. Even then, you could tell the difference in her writing. I am not amking a case for her as a great SF writer. I am just mulling and trying to tease at the why.

With Crusie, when she got popular she was doing different things than others. Her protags are older, the strength of the story and the supporting caharcters, the empasis on growth. I say that in each book there is something important going on and more important than the romance.

The other thing I notice is pace and a type of dialogue. She would be soemone I would recommend for writers who like to read outside of genre and pick up other things.

One thing I noticed a few years back is that romance writers have a strong sensitivity to their readers, stronger than I have seen in other genres. I think this may be success there depends on engaging the emotions and dreams of the reader, on knowing your audience very well.

It is a tighter rope to walk if you are writing actual sex scenes. But I think there are things for some writers to learn by cross reading. Writers have different intent like any artist.

I draw primarily because I must. It is very much for me. If there is something there speaking to others, attracting their attention, making them think, and I am pretty clear for some people that is so, that is a really nice feeling. It isn't my impetus. But I do value a range of viewing for technique.

I wouldn't, and cannot imagine drawing like someone else. The Finland comment is because I wouldn't tell you to be like Crusie or her like you. I was a little mind boggled that anyone had said that too you.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I don't know that I think romance writers are more sensitive to their readers than any other writers of genre fiction. I think that their readers want them to be sensitive to different things, but engaging emotions and knowing your audience are vital to any popular fiction field.

I was using the "more like Jennifer Cruisie" as an example -- she isn't one of the people some critiquers have wanted me to write more like. But she also isn't any more similar to me than some of the suggestions people have made.