Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime
My Encarta dictionary states:
literary
lit·er·ar·y [lítt? rèrree]
adjective
1. relating to literature: relating to literature, writing, or the study of literature
2. formally expressed: typical of literature rather than everyday speech
3. professionally involved with literature: involved with literature or writing as a profession
4. knowledgeable about literature: well-read or knowledgeable about literature
Point 2 does it for me - but I like the opposite, as in, more informal and more akin to everyday speech.
I think there are several levels up from this until it's classed as literary and some book s will be close to literary while others are distinctly such.
Anyway, if it's 'well-written' (another one to define!), has good characters, plot and suspense - then that's fine by me.
I've completely gone off Rankin Dorothy - so stick to your guns!
What about Ellory or Leonard?
I find it harder and harder to find 'well written' books these days.
As for subject matter I don't think I've seen immigration handled in the same way in mainstream fiction as it is in literary. I think you're talking Stylistics Col B - linguistic deviation - one of my academic loves!
Stirling - you're too clever for me: I'm all out of study mode!
I can't say I've read much literary stuff. Although Roger Hargreaves' Mr Tickle takes a bit of beating!
:D
Surely a good book is one you enjoy reading - "literary", "beach read" or whatever?
Like CelticC, I fail to see why there is an apparently arbitrary difference being drawn between Rankin and his fellow crime writers then renders his work "literary" and theirs not? (I understand your point ColB re preferring a more informal way of writing but surely informal writing can be "literary" as well?)
Informal writing rarely goes toward being classed as 'literary', that's the trouble.
Stirling, I love Leonard, his dialogue is so sharp it almost cuts the paper. Ellory, yes, definitely, good stuff, riveting reading.
There is a peculiarity, if there is such a word to describe this, within the world of writers/reviewers and the like. I have read virtually every book written by Arthur Bryant, who writes history the way I want to write history, only he does it out of masses of research and still makes it read like a novel. The man is pure genius. His 3 books on Samuel Pepys bring the man alive in a way I have not found anywhere else. As there was an indication of a fourth, to bring it to the end of Pepys' life, I googled him to see what it was called and where I could get it (never written, apparently) only to find a mass of people tearing him and his work to bits! Biased, fascist, you name it they said it. I took the books at face value, researched and well written and, what I know of his subject, correct in every way. Sometimes I feel as if I am missing something or is the rest of the world out of step with me? Difficult to decide. I know I walk alone to some degree but to that degree, I doubt it. I think it was a bad case of green eyed monster coming in. He was respected and popular.
Dorothy,
I just read your post with interest and at the point they were slagging Bryant I instinctively thought, 'Jealous b******s.' There's more people like that than you think. For whatever reason many people get off on slating others. I think it's because it deflects/hides there own inadequacies and empowers them somehow (the media may have played some part in this attitude over time).
Pat (we shorten names in Manchester - hope you don't mind, but by the time I've finished explaining I could've written Patrick!!! :)),
I'm not even sure I know what 'literary' writing is. I suppose in laymans terms it's writing for posh people (controversial perhaps, but true you're not posh).
I couldn't agree more re' the idea that a good book is one you enjoy.
Pat's fine by me Co! ;)
I don't know what "literary" writing is either - and it doesn't look as if anyone is going to enlighten us! - but also associate it with a snobbishness that implies it is somehow superior to work deemed (by whom?) to be not literary. Different writing styles don't necessarily mean that one is literary and the other not - it's not comparing like with like.
I also read Dorothy's post with interest because she seems very sure that Bryant was a good writer and the reviewers were merely jealous. (Could be the case, I'm not saying that it isn't) On another thread I have read her disparaging and dismissive comments on the writing of Barbara Erskine who has a very large fan base apparently. (Members of that fan base could easily assert the same accusation towards dorothy - though I suspect that might not be the case!)
Isn't the crux of this whole "debate" the fact that we all have individual preferences when it comes to reading - one man's meat, another man's poison... (I haven't read either Bryant or Erskine by the way so I have no preference!) and meaningless labels like "literary" just muddy the waters?
Well no, because literary is just another genre. It always saddens me when people dismiss it as 'writing for snobs.' There is many a page-turner that would be considered as literary - Kate Atkinson and Sarah Waters pops to my mind.
I do not see why you see Dorothy's comments as disparaging and dismissive; she formulated a well expressed argument to why the writing of said authors was poor. As writers and students of Literature we should sharpen our critical and writing skills. The day we stop learning and question is the day we put down the pen.
Have you tried Kate Atkinson Col? You would enjoy her crime novels.
I've not read her, but I do recall her winning stuff a few years ago.
I'm sure, too, that she's been in WN or WM.
Just checked out her website: she's writing about a PI, sounds interesting. And with Richard n Judy on board that should ensure she's a bestseller, if she wasn't already.
This is a really interesting discussion. But I suppose it is very easy to be critical of an author when you've never had anything published yourself! It all seems so easy. When I read a book I think is awful ,I try to stand back and think 'well this person got published and so far nobody wants to publish you They must be doing something right. Instead of slating them, try to learn from them.'
sometimes someone is doing something right, sometimes they are busy riding on the back of a bestseller which might well be the only decent book they ever write. It happens. People get 'written out' very quickly.
With reference to Arthur Bryant, I find historians a strangely picky difficult bunch, it's like being a peeled banana attacked by porcupines at times. Henry dismisses them all as of no account and sometimes I agree with him. The bias shown in some books is so blatant you know the person has only 'researched' and written it because of the name of the subject, one that will guarantee sales. I know from close reading that Philippa Gregory hates Henry. I have told her so in an email, I do not slag people off behind their backs! Jean Plaidy had the totally wrong idea about him too. That is getting away from historians who try and tear him apart. Recent Philippa Gregory article in the Mail, he was X inches around the chest which shows how obese he was. Right, she was going by armour size only. That discounts chain mail, thick padded underclothes, linen shirt and goodness knows what else he might have had on for protection. Does she think armour goes over skin????? The Boleyn Inheritance shows how she thinks Katherine Howard, a genuine ***** if ever there was one, was hard done by ... read Henry's words and weep, Philippa. He tells it as it was, not as we want to think it was.
Back to the point. Bryant stirred up resentment among fellow historians by his leanings, by his success, by his ability to translate aged research into readable material, that's my understanding of it.
Barbara Erskine wrote one good book, which I loved. All the others have been pale imitations and the writing has got steadily worse. This is not entirely my opinion, BTW, others have said it.
Martina Cole is written out. Faces was awful, 95 people said so before I got to Amazon to say so, goodness knows many there are now, I haven't been back to look, not interested enough. I lived in the area she writes about, I know how badly she described it in that book. First hand knowledge of many years.
I try not to disparage too much but sometimes how someone got into print is totally beyond me.
[quote=dorothyd]Barbara Erskine wrote one good book, which I loved. All the others have been pale imitations and the writing has got steadily worse. This is not entirely my opinion, BTW, others have said it.[/quote] -
out of mischief I checked this author on amazon and she consistently has ratings above 3 1/2 stars (average). The book you particularly seem to dislike Dorothy has 31 reviews of which 20 are 5 star and only five below 3 star. You may think her writing is poor but she is obviously pleasing her readers and, as Caro said, "doing something right" ! :)
I'm tempted to ask if she is a "literary" author but I wouldn't want to spoil Colb's "Utopia" ;)
History's not really my topic, but your argument appears pretty strong, Dorothy.
Pat, incidentally, for a good film on the Utopia idea, look no further than Equilibrium where initially they seem to have it, then the reasoning behind it becomes sinister, then they lose it all, only for it to be recaptured again, but in a genuine way.
Dorothy,
I couldn't agree more re' Martina Cole. Made a load of dosh and built a large fan-base, but I remember throwing one of her novels across the room in disgust at its shoddiness (too much to detail here). It was as though they (publishers, etc) thought, 'Yeah, we'll just throw another out and make some more money while it lasts - her readers don't seem too bothered as they keep buying.
she's not a crime writer, she's a historical writer. definitely not literary. Doesn't come close. I check her ratings too (you're not the only one!) but not everyone I speak to about her books leave reviews on Amazon, Patrick! What she does consistently is present/past. This particular present/past had bad writing, which I clearly set out, and faulty research which denies the thank yous in the back unless they got it wrong. I can see the glaring errors in it but then I am a Wars of the Roses 'historian' and can assure you that the Edward she writes of is not the Edward I know. Ditto Elizabeth Woodville, his queen. Ditto the de Veres. You need only ask the Earl or the Duke about the de Veres.
She is doing something right, she is writing potboilers for the hoi poloi, to be crude about it and her editor went home years ago. See opening posting. Is that edited writing? But when you develop yourself a Big Name you can get away with anything, especially bad writing. If you can keep fooling most of the people all of the time you get to make money. Right? The trick is to find that initial book which sets you on the pathway to fooling most of the people all of the time. It isn't only books, the same thing applies in the art world (especially in the art world) and the music industry.
Please don't for one moment think there is jealousy and resentment here for her success. I have sold a series of 20+ books, based on actual research, not this half done stuff, by going to the source, not to biased reports, contemporary or otherwise. Yes, of course there is bias in the source as well, they wouldn't be human if there wasn't a touch of bias but - not bias as in the menial who will never make it to the top (scribes and monks, diplomats appeasing their masters and the like) but bias in 'this is the way it really was, as I remember it' which is quite different.
Returning to Ms Erskine, this is one time when charity shops, ebay and the like come into their own. I would have bitterly resented paying full price for that book. A couple of ££s for a good cause is enough.
I've only read one Barbara Erskine book and I didn't really like it, but I have friends who love her books. I like Lee Child but I've noticed that his plots seem to get weaker all the time, yet he sells tons of books. I suppose if the readers keep buying then everyone is happy. Re reviews on Amazon. I don't think the number of stars is so important. What you have to look at is the sales. A lot of authors with only 2 stars are in the Amazon top 100 bestseller list.
I class 'literary' as the sort of books that are in the short list for literary prizes. Though that does seem to be changing lately.
I think as writers we are probably more critical than the ordinary reader- as I said earlier. Even best selling writers have down spells, and what they produce should not have seen the light of day, but because of their status and following it still gets through.
Usually they do pick up again and get back to their old form.
You're right about writers, Carol.
Whatever I read now is read with a critical eye and probably too much analysis and reading between lines, etc.
I don't think this a bad thing as it keeps you sharp for your own writing, but it can dilute your enjoyment somewhat.
Question: If I'd have been writing a literary piece would you/your in my last line have been replaced with 'one'?
;)
One is presently feeling somewhat tiresome regarding this literary debate.
;)
Back to crime...
If I was to set up a thread encouraging people to submit their crime related shorts would there be enough interest to have, say, a bi-monthly competition?
Isn't this a bit like what Matt is offering on the other site?
I'd also wonder how many people have time to write pieces just for this forum? (Ok, I know they do it for the One Word Challenge - but they could submit a crime short for that.) Won't most people be working on work they hope to submit for publication and isn't it considered published if they post it on here?
Not trying to put the dampners on, just giving my opinion. :)
I suppose it comes down to how, as length could be a problem, and it would count as published if it appeared here. Perhaps when Col B has had some further thoughts he could let everyone know and see what the views are.
Just thought I'd bounce the idea around on a whim.
Having stewed on the idea I'm drifting towards CC's standpoint to be honest. Like you say, anyone interested in testing the water with their crime (as well as thriller and horror stories) can dig out the Thrills, Chills n Kills thread so there's already that option open to all where constructive feedback can be gleaned.
If I come up with anything else crime-related I'll let you know.
Ping! Before I finished that last sentence I just had a further thought...why not have 'crime' as the word for a forthcoming one word challenge?
Anyone into reading crime may like Chris Simms. If you've not heard of him I think he's on book seven now. I've read his stuff and it's really good. He clearly researches his subjects and locations to bring an authentic feel. They're a bit 'dark,' which may explain why I loved them.
;)
no recommendations, but a comment on Paul Johnston's Water of Death. I wrote about this on the What Are You Reading Now thread but it continues to bother me. He has an excellent idea, Edinburgh, independent, 2025, collapse of society, water rationed, climate change gone mad, new rules, new laws, new conventions, ranks and strict hierarchy, all very clever and works well with the crime story. But. He labours it so much, explains it so much, goes into description of what people are wearing, how they react to him as a downgraded citizen, too much. It's sort of 'hey, enough is enough!' and 'can we get on with the story?' Object lesson, story first, research (no matter what it is) second. It spoiled the crime element.
Now reading Kit Craig's compelling first novel, Gone. Very well done, no mistakes, no errors here, tight writing and a storyline that for once lives up to the 'one sitting' review it obtained.
Dorothy,
I read Kit Craig's gone years ago and, though I can't remember specifics, I do recall thoroughly enjoying it.
Stirling,
I was gonna suggest Robert Barnard, but I'm not sure just how literary (here we go again!) he actually is.
Not that I necessarily want a literary novel; just something that isn't crime fiction paint-by-numbers would be nice (picked up a series of formulaic novels lately!)
I've posted another short on this site if anyone wants a nosey.
It's not for the faint-hearted.
All feedback welcome.
Have a read of Bill's stuff, too.
[quote=Col B.]It's not for the faint-hearted.[/quote] -
it's not too gruesome and well worth a read, as are Bill's pieces - but maybe in daylight if you are of a nervous disposition! ;)
Stirling,
I can't recall which thread you were asking about Matt Hilton's book tour.
I spoken to him and although he's travelling around a bit, as it's his first book there's no official tour. That will come on the second book (October), but as a consolation he'll sign a book plate for you and post it if you want.
Let me know.
Col
Email me n or Matt direct with your postal address and either way we'll sort it.
Both our emails are on the Thrillers, Killers N Chillers opening page.
Comments
literary
lit·er·ar·y [lítt? rèrree]
adjective
1. relating to literature: relating to literature, writing, or the study of literature
2. formally expressed: typical of literature rather than everyday speech
3. professionally involved with literature: involved with literature or writing as a profession
4. knowledgeable about literature: well-read or knowledgeable about literature
Point 2 does it for me - but I like the opposite, as in, more informal and more akin to everyday speech.
I think there are several levels up from this until it's classed as literary and some book s will be close to literary while others are distinctly such.
Anyway, if it's 'well-written' (another one to define!), has good characters, plot and suspense - then that's fine by me.
What about Ellory or Leonard?
I find it harder and harder to find 'well written' books these days.
As for subject matter I don't think I've seen immigration handled in the same way in mainstream fiction as it is in literary. I think you're talking Stylistics Col B - linguistic deviation - one of my academic loves!
I can't say I've read much literary stuff. Although Roger Hargreaves' Mr Tickle takes a bit of beating!
:D
I just find my tastes in reading veer towards those type of books. I've never been one for 'beach reads'.
Like CelticC, I fail to see why there is an apparently arbitrary difference being drawn between Rankin and his fellow crime writers then renders his work "literary" and theirs not? (I understand your point ColB re preferring a more informal way of writing but surely informal writing can be "literary" as well?)
Stirling, I love Leonard, his dialogue is so sharp it almost cuts the paper. Ellory, yes, definitely, good stuff, riveting reading.
There is a peculiarity, if there is such a word to describe this, within the world of writers/reviewers and the like. I have read virtually every book written by Arthur Bryant, who writes history the way I want to write history, only he does it out of masses of research and still makes it read like a novel. The man is pure genius. His 3 books on Samuel Pepys bring the man alive in a way I have not found anywhere else. As there was an indication of a fourth, to bring it to the end of Pepys' life, I googled him to see what it was called and where I could get it (never written, apparently) only to find a mass of people tearing him and his work to bits! Biased, fascist, you name it they said it. I took the books at face value, researched and well written and, what I know of his subject, correct in every way. Sometimes I feel as if I am missing something or is the rest of the world out of step with me? Difficult to decide. I know I walk alone to some degree but to that degree, I doubt it. I think it was a bad case of green eyed monster coming in. He was respected and popular.
I just read your post with interest and at the point they were slagging Bryant I instinctively thought, 'Jealous b******s.' There's more people like that than you think. For whatever reason many people get off on slating others. I think it's because it deflects/hides there own inadequacies and empowers them somehow (the media may have played some part in this attitude over time).
Pat (we shorten names in Manchester - hope you don't mind, but by the time I've finished explaining I could've written Patrick!!! :)),
I'm not even sure I know what 'literary' writing is. I suppose in laymans terms it's writing for posh people (controversial perhaps, but true you're not posh).
I couldn't agree more re' the idea that a good book is one you enjoy.
I don't know what "literary" writing is either - and it doesn't look as if anyone is going to enlighten us! - but also associate it with a snobbishness that implies it is somehow superior to work deemed (by whom?) to be not literary. Different writing styles don't necessarily mean that one is literary and the other not - it's not comparing like with like.
I also read Dorothy's post with interest because she seems very sure that Bryant was a good writer and the reviewers were merely jealous. (Could be the case, I'm not saying that it isn't) On another thread I have read her disparaging and dismissive comments on the writing of Barbara Erskine who has a very large fan base apparently. (Members of that fan base could easily assert the same accusation towards dorothy - though I suspect that might not be the case!)
Isn't the crux of this whole "debate" the fact that we all have individual preferences when it comes to reading - one man's meat, another man's poison... (I haven't read either Bryant or Erskine by the way so I have no preference!) and meaningless labels like "literary" just muddy the waters?
We all know writing is subjective. Why can't the population all get along?...I feel a story coming on...Utopia!
;)
I do not see why you see Dorothy's comments as disparaging and dismissive; she formulated a well expressed argument to why the writing of said authors was poor. As writers and students of Literature we should sharpen our critical and writing skills. The day we stop learning and question is the day we put down the pen.
Have you tried Kate Atkinson Col? You would enjoy her crime novels.
I'm sure, too, that she's been in WN or WM.
Just checked out her website: she's writing about a PI, sounds interesting. And with Richard n Judy on board that should ensure she's a bestseller, if she wasn't already.
;)
isn't that a matter of opinion Col? :P
I agree with Caro - it's always much easier to see the negative than to take the time to work out what is positive.
With reference to Arthur Bryant, I find historians a strangely picky difficult bunch, it's like being a peeled banana attacked by porcupines at times. Henry dismisses them all as of no account and sometimes I agree with him. The bias shown in some books is so blatant you know the person has only 'researched' and written it because of the name of the subject, one that will guarantee sales. I know from close reading that Philippa Gregory hates Henry. I have told her so in an email, I do not slag people off behind their backs! Jean Plaidy had the totally wrong idea about him too. That is getting away from historians who try and tear him apart. Recent Philippa Gregory article in the Mail, he was X inches around the chest which shows how obese he was. Right, she was going by armour size only. That discounts chain mail, thick padded underclothes, linen shirt and goodness knows what else he might have had on for protection. Does she think armour goes over skin????? The Boleyn Inheritance shows how she thinks Katherine Howard, a genuine ***** if ever there was one, was hard done by ... read Henry's words and weep, Philippa. He tells it as it was, not as we want to think it was.
Back to the point. Bryant stirred up resentment among fellow historians by his leanings, by his success, by his ability to translate aged research into readable material, that's my understanding of it.
Barbara Erskine wrote one good book, which I loved. All the others have been pale imitations and the writing has got steadily worse. This is not entirely my opinion, BTW, others have said it.
Martina Cole is written out. Faces was awful, 95 people said so before I got to Amazon to say so, goodness knows many there are now, I haven't been back to look, not interested enough. I lived in the area she writes about, I know how badly she described it in that book. First hand knowledge of many years.
I try not to disparage too much but sometimes how someone got into print is totally beyond me.
out of mischief I checked this author on amazon and she consistently has ratings above 3 1/2 stars (average). The book you particularly seem to dislike Dorothy has 31 reviews of which 20 are 5 star and only five below 3 star. You may think her writing is poor but she is obviously pleasing her readers and, as Caro said, "doing something right" ! :)
I'm tempted to ask if she is a "literary" author but I wouldn't want to spoil Colb's "Utopia" ;)
Not even sure if she is a crime writer?
Pat, incidentally, for a good film on the Utopia idea, look no further than Equilibrium where initially they seem to have it, then the reasoning behind it becomes sinister, then they lose it all, only for it to be recaptured again, but in a genuine way.
Dorothy,
I couldn't agree more re' Martina Cole. Made a load of dosh and built a large fan-base, but I remember throwing one of her novels across the room in disgust at its shoddiness (too much to detail here). It was as though they (publishers, etc) thought, 'Yeah, we'll just throw another out and make some more money while it lasts - her readers don't seem too bothered as they keep buying.
She is doing something right, she is writing potboilers for the hoi poloi, to be crude about it and her editor went home years ago. See opening posting. Is that edited writing? But when you develop yourself a Big Name you can get away with anything, especially bad writing. If you can keep fooling most of the people all of the time you get to make money. Right? The trick is to find that initial book which sets you on the pathway to fooling most of the people all of the time. It isn't only books, the same thing applies in the art world (especially in the art world) and the music industry.
Please don't for one moment think there is jealousy and resentment here for her success. I have sold a series of 20+ books, based on actual research, not this half done stuff, by going to the source, not to biased reports, contemporary or otherwise. Yes, of course there is bias in the source as well, they wouldn't be human if there wasn't a touch of bias but - not bias as in the menial who will never make it to the top (scribes and monks, diplomats appeasing their masters and the like) but bias in 'this is the way it really was, as I remember it' which is quite different.
Returning to Ms Erskine, this is one time when charity shops, ebay and the like come into their own. I would have bitterly resented paying full price for that book. A couple of ££s for a good cause is enough.
I think as writers we are probably more critical than the ordinary reader- as I said earlier. Even best selling writers have down spells, and what they produce should not have seen the light of day, but because of their status and following it still gets through.
Usually they do pick up again and get back to their old form.
Whatever I read now is read with a critical eye and probably too much analysis and reading between lines, etc.
I don't think this a bad thing as it keeps you sharp for your own writing, but it can dilute your enjoyment somewhat.
Question: If I'd have been writing a literary piece would you/your in my last line have been replaced with 'one'?
;)
;)
Back to crime...
If I was to set up a thread encouraging people to submit their crime related shorts would there be enough interest to have, say, a bi-monthly competition?
Opinions please...
Any more opinions?
I'd also wonder how many people have time to write pieces just for this forum? (Ok, I know they do it for the One Word Challenge - but they could submit a crime short for that.) Won't most people be working on work they hope to submit for publication and isn't it considered published if they post it on here?
Not trying to put the dampners on, just giving my opinion. :)
Having stewed on the idea I'm drifting towards CC's standpoint to be honest. Like you say, anyone interested in testing the water with their crime (as well as thriller and horror stories) can dig out the Thrills, Chills n Kills thread so there's already that option open to all where constructive feedback can be gleaned.
If I come up with anything else crime-related I'll let you know.
Ping! Before I finished that last sentence I just had a further thought...why not have 'crime' as the word for a forthcoming one word challenge?
;)
Any recommendations?
Now reading Kit Craig's compelling first novel, Gone. Very well done, no mistakes, no errors here, tight writing and a storyline that for once lives up to the 'one sitting' review it obtained.
I read Kit Craig's gone years ago and, though I can't remember specifics, I do recall thoroughly enjoying it.
Stirling,
I was gonna suggest Robert Barnard, but I'm not sure just how literary (here we go again!) he actually is.
Thanks for the tips.
http://colburysnewcrimefiction.blogspot.com/
;)
glad you enjoyed it.
(don't be a stranger!).
;)
It's not for the faint-hearted.
All feedback welcome.
Have a read of Bill's stuff, too.
http://thrillskillsnchills.blogspot.com/
it's not too gruesome and well worth a read, as are Bill's pieces - but maybe in daylight if you are of a nervous disposition! ;)
I can't recall which thread you were asking about Matt Hilton's book tour.
I spoken to him and although he's travelling around a bit, as it's his first book there's no official tour. That will come on the second book (October), but as a consolation he'll sign a book plate for you and post it if you want.
Let me know.
Col
Both our emails are on the Thrillers, Killers N Chillers opening page.