Let’s Talk is a meme hosted by Melissa at I Swim For Oceans.
It’s guided discussion on anything and everything to do with books and more!
Please drop by I Swim for Oceans to find other participants in Let’s Talk!
This week’s topic:
How would you define your overall reading style?
I’m a very analytical reader. I focus on details like good technical writing. The writing needs to be well-structured – no breaking writing rules because the author is all like FUCK THE SYSTEM, or simply doesn’t know how to grammatically put together a sentence, or the writer thinks their writing is omgsoamazingbeautiful that they throw weird metaphors or overly write their descriptions because no one will ever possibly think their writing isn’t unicornpoopmagic. No ‘ignore the writing, what do you think of the adventure/character?’ get-out-easy.
Some people have the gift. Some don’t.
If you’re going to put out a product, a professional product, whether it’s published by a big house or a small press, a vanity press, or self-published, the writing needs to be good. Not just good for you, but good in comparison to the masses of text already available to read. Usually this requires hiring an editor, but I have had the misfortune to attempt to read self-published ‘books’ (and I use the term lightly) where the author doesn’t even use the correct words, but instead uses homophones, or even words that sound familiar, like they’ve heard them on a TV show but have no idea how to spell it.
Like ‘pique’ someone’s interest, not ‘peak’ someone’s interest. ‘Manor house’ not ‘Manner house’.
If I know the rules of writing then I expect actual writers to know. When I think I can do better, or I’m editing the book in my head as I read, I lose patience and gain frustration and am far more likely to not enjoy the book.
Some readers aren’t bothered by misspellings, bad punctuation, or incorrect grammar. Some readers aren’t bothered by plot holes or bad characterisation. All of it bothers me – although if the writing is beautiful enough, I can often forgive plot holes as ‘suspension of disbelief.’