Do You Want To Read A Book That Gives The POV Of The Villain?
Wednesday, September 19, 2007Posted in: burning bridges, Edita A. Petrick, POVs, Samhain Publishing
Someone’s book got rejected by Samhain and she wasn’t pleased about it. And I mean, REALLY not pleased about it. *g*
Apparently an editor at Samhain rejected Edita A Petrick’s suspense story because it began with the villain’s point of view.
Petrick writes:
“I’ve submitted to them one of my suspense thrillers with romantic/paranormal elements and it does open up in killer’s pov since it’s essential to the story and for the reader to understand where the paranormal thread/element comes from.
The premise is quite simple. The killer assassinates his ‘mark’ but because of paranormal elements (an ancient heirloom locket the victim wears) the victim survives what for all intents and purposes is a sure-kill.
Samhain, however, feels that it is very bad to start in killer’s pov or to show glimpses of what drives the killer throughout the story. This was number one ‘flaw’ of the story’s presentation according to the editor.
Number two was that there were more than one point-of-view presentation. Basically, the editor said it’s not possible for the reader to follow ‘threads’ of the story as these are far apart by definition of what the story is but they come together as the events impact on them and force them to come together (as they must) for the story to have a resolution.”
As a reader, I really don’t have a problem with starting a book from the villain’s point of view. It’s all in the execution, as far as I’m concerned. Does the author give away key clues as to the identity of the villain? Does she give away who the next victim will be? Does she actually give away the whys and wherefores of the villains actions? If not, what’s the problem? And even if she did, there are ways to keep the reader still glued to the book. Yes, to me, execution is definitely key.
Now it could be that the book actually sucked donkeys, and the POVs were just one aspect of the story that didn’t work for the editor, but as far as rejecting the book just because she doesn’t think multiple POVs work, well…. you gotta question the editor, seeing as many best selling authors use multiple POVs, including that of the villain.
So, waddaya think? Do you prefer POVs to be restricted to the good guys, or do you want to know what the bad guys are thinking too?
If you do want to know what the bad guys are thinking, do you think it’s appropriate to start a book with the villain’s point of view?
Also, what do you think of multiple POVs and authors who head-hop, in general? For? Against? Couldn’t give a flying fuck?
By the way, did Charlotte Boyett Compo of the ‘Wind’ books, and Samhain have a falling out of sorts?
“Antiquated thinking? You betcha. I completely agree that it is insulting to the reader. Samhain needs to take another look at what’s going on in the real world of publishing.”
I almost got whiplash when I read that comment from CBC. Just call me Curious George…
Jane
September 19
6:11 pm
I guess my fave comment was by a competing publisher who said something like – I’ve had lots of bestsellers and poo on Samhain.
(obvious paraphrase there)
Alyssa
September 19
6:16 pm
Yes, to me, execution is definitely key.
For me too. I’ve read lots of books with the villain’s POV.
I wonder if the editor was talking more about the execution as opposed to making general statements.
Dionne Galace
September 19
6:25 pm
I will 3rd or 4th that “execution is key” dealie.
Remember the villain POV from Linda Howard’s Dream Man? Scared the crap out of me and made me fear for the protags.
Teddy Pig
September 19
6:34 pm
Multiple POVs or head-hopping weakens the storyline and complicates keeping track of character motivation and movement.
The easiest stories to read have at most maybe 1 or at most 2 POVs. It feels cleaner and direct.
I also tend to consider multiple POVs lazy since it does take some thought to get the story you want to tell across without the constant head-hopping. You have to describe another characters physical action or tone of voice and that is work.
I can accept a smidgen of head-hopping if there was no other way to show an important scene because it took place outside the main characters view.
Just my opinion.
Karen Scott
September 19
6:38 pm
I guess my fave comment was by a competing publisher who said something like – I’ve had lots of bestsellers and poo on Samhain.
I was really tempted to write something like, “and who are you again?” when I read her comments. Isn’t bashing the competition publically, breaking some kind of unspoken rule in business?
Just sayin’
I wonder if the editor was talking more about the execution
I’m guessing that she probably was. I’m not sure what the author thought she would gain by complaining about it so publically though. Seems a bit daft to me, and will be likely seen as sour grapes, no matter her denials.
Remember the villain POV from Linda Howard’s Dream Man? Scared the crap out of me and made me fear for the protags.
God, yes Dee, perfect example of it working well. That dude was way creepy.
Anonymous
September 19
6:43 pm
I remembered this story from the Samhain Best First Line Contest. I don’t know about the rest of the manuscript, but I thought the lst lines stood out from many of the other entries because it came from the villain’s POV.
An interesting POV to start with, and I’d be curious enough about the rest to buy it. Best of luck to her.
Denise
Teddy Pig
September 19
6:43 pm
Oh and Angela still has class.
Dionne Galace
September 19
6:56 pm
Ah, one effective use of head-hopping was “The Babysitter” in Pricksongs and Descants by Robert Coover. You’re never quite sure sometimes who’s POV you’re in, but it adds to the creepiness factor because there isn’t ONE nice character in the story.
But Coover is a genius.
Dionne Galace
September 19
6:59 pm
i meant whose
DAMN YOU, no-editing thingey!
Shannon Stacey
September 19
7:02 pm
There was a cold-read workshop Nats before last in which neither Irene Goodman or Lucia Macro cared for a submission opening in the villain’s POV. Gee, maybe somebody should invite them into the “real” world of publishing, too?
Personally, I couldn’t care less if a book opens in the POV of the goat’s left nut if it sucks me into the story. I’d guess many readers (editors included) feel the same way, and the editor was merely trying to be constructive.
Stay tuned for next month’s bitch about some Samhain editor who’s only sending form rejection letters and nobody knows why.
Ann Aguirre
September 19
7:26 pm
“Do You Want To Read A Book That Gives The POV Of The Villain?”
No. Next question?
Wendy
September 19
7:42 pm
My first response to all of this is to cry bullshit. Countless (it’s damn near cliche) mystery/suspense novels feature multiple POVs and opening chapters/prologues told from the villain’s POV. Frankly, like most things in life, it boils down to execution. I happen to like head-hopping (there I said it), but if the author doesn’t execute it well it’s very distracting and damn near impossible to read.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say this author’s book was rejected for more reasons that she’s not fessing up to. I just have a hard time believing an editor would outright reject a book because the opening chapter is in a certain POV.
But I could be wrong.
Anonymous
September 19
7:43 pm
“Stay tuned for next month’s bitch about some Samhain editor who’s only sending form rejection letters and nobody knows why.”
exactly.
It didn’t work for that editor abnd that was why… move on.
Nora Roberts
September 19
7:57 pm
I’d have no problem with an opening from the bad guy’s POV–and in fact have done so in my own work. Does it serve a purpose? Is it well done?
I like multiple POVs–and wouldn’t agree that using them is lazy writing. People can say just about anything they want about my work, but I don’t think anybody could call me a lazy writer. It’s a matter of style and voice.
And, yeah, it’s always about execution.
Teddy Pig
September 19
8:44 pm
Nora,
The most noted complaint about how a book is written that I have read over and over again, and I read tons of book reviews, is…
head-hopping!
Maybe someone could be using this method to benefit the story they are telling as a style or voice but… many more are using it badly in a distracting way.
So why take a chance on using a method that is prone to causing confusion for the reader?
I just think minimizing the amount of POVs used in a story is a good discipline.
I am not saying which characters POV you use. In a dark mystery I could see using a villain’s POV being used along with the person out to catch him.
jmc
September 19
8:51 pm
When I read your question about villain POV, the first thing I thought of was La Nora’s In Death books, which frequently include snips from the villain’s POV. In fact, I think Creation in Death opens with it…or seems to, based on the excerpt in the paperback reissue of Innocent.
But it looks like La Nora has already spoken up
KateS
September 19
9:11 pm
Ok first – Karen reads our blog? Get out!
I like that Marissa didn’t enjoy seeing the POV of the villain in the beginning. She was very honest about her likes and dislikes, what works for her, and how she puts that into her own books. And hey, I don’t read many sheik books, and she devours them like crazy. *g*
The thing this author should have understood is that every editor has likes and dislikes, and what works for one may not work for another, same as other authors, readers, and reviewers. Obviously this didn’t work for that editor, and shame on the author for tearing into her in such a public manner. Regardless whether the editor didn’t like the villain’s POV or the headhopping or just the overly-wordy writing, it didn’t work for her. That’s all an author needs to know. Does it suck that your book was rejected? Absolutely! But suck it up! Cry into your coffee, complain to your friends, but keep names off the internet for your own future sake! Do anyone think another editor is going to look at a submission from an author like that the same way if they’ve heard that they publicly bashed an editor for her rejection? I think the chances are slim.
And Karen, personally, the only books in which I’ve enjoyed seeing the villain’s POV were a couple of Julie Garwood historicals, where she gave us direct thoughts after a few chapters that showed what a sicko he was. Or maybe it was just one book. Can’t remember. But she did it well enough to stick in my memory!
Michelle
September 19
9:16 pm
I don’t mind different POV. I agree that it is all in the execution.
Another Anonymous
September 19
9:47 pm
Post another vote for “it’s all in the execution.”
Some authors are great at showing multiple POVs (Hi, Nora Roberts!) and some authors’ attempts to show the villain’s POV tend to annoy their readers (Sorry, J.R. Ward.)
If an author can’t make POV switching work, they should drop it (Thanks, Ms. Ward!).
Even if the trend is for showing multiple points of view, I like a well-written book with one POV better than a poorly-written book that struggles to incorporate “hot” elements.
It was bad form for the writer to complain in public about a rejection. Everyone gets rejections. The only way to handle them with grace is to thank the editor for their time and consideration, whether you agree with her or not.
But you can take my opinion with a grain of salt. Or a shaker full. I’m too timid to even sign my name to this comment.
Nora Roberts
September 19
9:50 pm
~I just think minimizing the amount of POVs used in a story is a good discipline.~
I just disagree, creatively. I think it has to be done well, and serve a purpose–and that doing it well, insuring it serves a purpose could also be considered a good discipline.
There’s just no one way. To me, the mistake many writers make is being so absolutely sure their way is the right way. For them, it may be. But for another writer, not so much.
I’d never say: Multi POV is correct or better. It’s just another way to tell a story.
And since I snuck my first secondary POV into category Romance way back when (only the heroine’s POV was allowed in category in the early days), it’s been mine.
Nora Roberts
September 19
9:51 pm
~Cry into your coffee, complain to your friends, but keep names off the internet for your own future sake!~
Btw, totally agree with this.
Eve Vaughn
September 19
9:54 pm
If the story is entertaining, I don’t care if there were ten POVs. I don’t mind reading the villian’s POV. Sometimes it provides a little insight.
Teddy Pig
September 19
10:27 pm
“Even if the trend is for showing multiple points of view, I like a well-written book with one POV better than a poorly-written book that struggles to incorporate “hot” elements.”
Totally agree as a reader. Nothing bombs bigger than an already weak story crammed with multi-POVs giving me a headache and confusing the action scenes.
Which if this continues to be a trend that is followed in the spirit of creativity will lead me to dump even more authors off my reading list. Hmm maybe it will save me money.
Nora Roberts
September 19
10:32 pm
~Even if the trend is for showing multiple points of view, I like a well-written book with one POV better than a poorly-written book that struggles to incorporate “hot” elements~
So, wouldn’t it follow that you’d like a well-written book with multi POV’s rather than a poorly-written one with one POV?
Doesn’t it, again, go back to execution?
Charli
September 19
11:05 pm
*snort* Apparently, you guys missed the best part of E.A. Patrick’s rant–right after that entry about the Samhain editor, she posted snippets of other rejections she’s gotten over the years from various agents and editors–complete with their names attached. And then she put commentary after each letter she posted. At the end she said something like “this is just the tip of the iceberg of all the rejections I’ve gotten over the past few years.”
Someone must have told her foolish she was making herself look, because she deleted that entry.
Shannon Stacey
September 19
11:27 pm
I’ll try to make this coherent, but I’ve been drinking Sprite instead of coffee all afternoon and the sugar rush is incredible. For simplicity’s sake, I’ll use JR and Nora as examples. In both the BDB series and High Noon, the reader gets the villain’s POV.
In the BDB series, I’ll be honest—I skim the scenes from the Lessers’ POVs. I want back to the Brothers. The suspense can be fed to us from the protagonists’ POVs. The Brotherhood knows they’re out there, they’re bad, and it’s a life or death battle. We feel that urgency more intimately through the POVs of the Brothers, than through the Lessers’, because we care about them. So in this case, I’d rather not have the villain’s POV.
In High Noon, we don’t get that sense of urgency through Phoebe or Duncan’s POVs because they don’t really know the villain is out there or how bad it really is. The thrill for the reader is knowing, is anticipating, is sitting on the edge of the couch terrified for them because WE know what’s coming, though not who, and they don’t and we care about them. High Noon couldn’t work without the villain’s POV because the anticipation and tension would be gone.
Which is all just a really wordy way of saying it’s all in the execution, I guess. Like every other scene in a good book, the villain’s POV scene HAS to serve a purpose.
Jennifer McK
September 19
11:29 pm
I don’t have much to say except to ditto what others have said about execution.
I will say I’m put off by the fact that the author was very specific about this rejection. I may say I was rejected at “So and So” publisher, but I’m not going to state what editor rejected me. That seems a little to personal to me.
When my last story was rejected and I received comments that I questioned, I checked with my critique partner and submitted it to another publisher.
Blogging about the specifics didn’t even occur to me.
avidbookreader
September 20
12:02 am
Karen Rose’s last two books had the villian’s POV and to mimic the chorus who have already spoken, execution is key. I just don’t care for no skanky villian sex. They can keep that behind closed doors!–keishon
Kristie (J)
September 20
12:25 am
I just shake my head at some people. Whether she totally disagrees with the editor, to name said editor just reeks of Really Stupid Thing To Do. Ask in general what readers thought then either change it to fit what the editor wanted or submit it somewhere else as is. But to name publishers in a bitchy way like that is career suicide if you ask me.
Kat O+
September 20
12:39 am
It’s hard to comment about that post without having seen the writing. In general, I’m not a huge fan of the villain’s POV but only because I don’t find it necessary most of the time. In general, I prefer as few POVs as possible when an author is writing in close third. But when an author is omniscient, I don’t care so long as it doesn’t affect the flow of the storytelling. And I find it curious that readers (in general, not necessarily the commenters here) get so hung up about POV.
I think what’s most telling about the linked post is that it was written at all and that names were named. I wonder if that would have happened if it had been a NY editor doing the rejecting?
Heather
September 20
12:39 am
I like reading multiple POVs. I enjoy writing multiple POVs as well, though I don’t mix the POVs. Yes, it takes more thought, but it’s a challenge that I enjoy while writing. To me, one POV in a book is just boring.
As to the bad guys, well, if it helps push the story forward or adds something to the story, then I’m there. If not, I skim for dialogue and move on. It depends greatly on the story and how it’s written into the story.
Ann Bruce
September 20
1:30 am
I’m cool with multiple POVs. Sometimes the heroine is a ditz and you can’t understand why the hero is attracted to her until you get inside in head (sometimes that doesn’t explain it, either *shrug*).
As for villain POVs…like several people have said, execution is key. And I have no problems with knowing the villains identity early in the book (if it’s intentional) because some of the best books are those where the enemy is known, but the protagonists still have to catch him/her.
Marissa Scott
September 20
1:31 am
Interesting to find this here, Karen. Very interesting indeed. I didn’t know you popped over. LOL
Anyway, my perspective on this is pretty clear on Great Scotts, but I’ll say it here as well.
In my opinion, I think revealing the “why” too soon in a romantic suspense is a bad, bad, bad thing… at least to me as a reader. I find out about the whoedoneit before I’m at the end and who the hell wants to keep reading? I know it all! I mean, it’s a romantic suspense, the romance means you ARE going to get to the HEA, it’s a given. So that leaves the suspense… and if you give that away, you better be one damn creative genius because keeping me hooked after I find out who the bad guy (or evil doer as George W would say) is, the story is over.
It’s like flipping to the back of the book and cheating to find who the bad guy is because you can’t stand it anymore… but you know what? After that, do you really want to keep reading the book? Wasn’t it the suspense that held your attention in the first place, the suspense that compelled you to flip to the back of the book to find out the whodoneit because it had you on the edge of your seat? When that’s discovered, the thrill FOR ME is over… which is why I believe the whodoneit should be at the BACK of the book.
Now, if you want to have the villian in the book and have his perspective, say maybe standing across the street thinking, “I’m going to kill that bitch. But not yet. It’s not her turn.” and not reveal his/her identity or the why… COOL! I’m all for it.
But to me, as an avid reader, revealing the who or why is TABOO, badness, evil, and just plain old ticks me off. The only book I’ve ever read where the villian was revealed early on in the book that I’ve actually finished, was Blue Smoke by Nora Roberts. As I said on my blog, Nora can, with little effort, make a grocery receipt look interesting.
Marissa Scott
September 20
1:35 am
I like multiple POVs–and wouldn’t agree that using them is lazy writing. People can say just about anything they want about my work, but I don’t think anybody could call me a lazy writer. It’s a matter of style and voice.
GASP! I would NEVER call you a lazy writer, Nora.
I know you wrote your book(s) that way for a reason, for a purpose, to help further the storyline. But some, unlike you who can write it either way, just do it all the time because they don’t take the time to develop the technique in how NOT to do it.
Holy mother of God… I’m going to bury my head in the sand.
Anne
September 20
1:36 am
JMC said…
When I read your question about villain POV, the first thing I thought of was La Nora’s In Death books, which frequently include snips from the villain’s POV. In fact, I think Creation in Death opens with it…or seems to, based on the excerpt in the paperback reissue of Innocent.
But she doesn’t tell the WHO or WHY which makes a WORLD of difference.
Ann Bruce
September 20
1:42 am
villains = villain’s
Why isn’t there an edit function?
che
September 20
1:46 am
I’m fine with a book starting with the villain’s pov, either in the prologue, or the first chapter, as long as it is brief. Thoughout the book- brief and infrequent is fine. When the villain’s pov shares equal billing with the h/h’s pov,- then I’m liable to skip/skim.
Count me in as preferring multiple povs. When I read a romance, I want the hero’s pov too. I want to read what he thinks of the heroine, his lust thoughts, etc. I read romances primarily for the hero. I’m curious if there was ever a romance written entirely in the hero’s pov?
shiloh walker
September 20
1:50 am
Also, what do you think of multiple POVs and authors who head-hop, in general? For? Against? Couldn’t give a flying fuck?
I’m a head hopper. I’ve smoothed it out some, but definitely a head hopper.
As to the villian’s POV, I’m okay with it… if it’s done right. I don’t want so much of the bad guy’s POV that it bogs me down-and I don’t want to get the feeling that I’m supposed to sympathize with him.
The whys and why-nots regarding the book, the author and Samhain, that’s between them and none of my business. However, skimming the blog post, it seems as though there was a little more to it than the killer’s POV.
But my thinking… if the main problem was opening with the bad guy’s POV but the story itself was very compelling, would the editor flat out refuse it over that?
It’s like flipping to the back of the book and cheating to find who the bad guy is because you can’t stand it anymore… but you know what? After that, do you really want to keep reading the book?
You mean I’m not supposed to do that? Oops. :OP On a serious note, I have done it, not often, but I have. But I keep reading the book. It’s not always knowing who the killer is, or that there will be a HEA. It’s the journey. You can cheat a little, but if you want the full journey, you have to read it.
But to name publishers in a bitchy way like that is career suicide if you ask me.
Here, here! It’s the image thing again, people.
I’m curious if there was ever a romance written entirely in the hero’s pov?
I could be wrong, but I think Alison Kent has a contemporary category.. Blaze, maybe? That’s from the hero’s POV.
Angela James
September 20
2:01 am
From an editor standpoint, posts like the one in question can be very frustrating. For one thing, we always seem to be caught in this damned if you do and damned if you don’t quandary. Authors complain that they get form rejection letters, which doesn’t give them any help in knowing if there’s room for improvement or just why the editor “didn’t love it”. But then you see a post like this and you think…well, you feel frustrated. Because writing a personal rejection is a LOT harder and more time consuming (and time is always in short supply) than a form rejection and certainly there doesn’t seem to be a lot of personal gain for the editor in taking the time to give that feedback, especially if this is the end result. A situation like this seems unfair to the editor for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that she can’t “defend her self” without looking like a total toad. After all, it’s not as if she’s going to be able to actually share the letter she wrote, her exact reasons for it, or let others read the book in question to see how right or wrong they think she was.
But the form rejection doesn’t come without its own difficulties. One of my editors sent a more generic rejection to an author a few weeks ago. Nothing specific to the book but more of a “this book isn’t right for us, thank you for considering us and good luck”. There are a variety of reasons to send a form letter, one of which is aptly demonstrated by this post. In this case, the editor got a very lengthy email from the author (who cc’d me), detailing all the reasons we needed to provide specific feedback and berating us for not doing more to help authors understand what they’re doing wrong.
See? Damned if you do…
One of the interesting things that someone noted is that this particular submission was apparently one of the final entries in our first line contest. That contest illustrated to me so dramatically how subjective personal taste is, it was quite amazing. Even as the entries got narrowed down in numbers, the editors still had very few overlaps in choices for the entries they liked.
And often in our rejection letters we’ll say that–this business is incredibly subjective and another publisher, another editor might love your book but it’s just not a great fit for us. I think that’s so important for authors to remember. After all, for all the people who love Nora’s books, there are those who don’t…though clearly they’re insane and just can’t recognize fine literature
As for multiple POVs, well, Samhain (and the editor in question)has published books with multiple POVs, first person POVs and so on. It all depends on the story.
Anne
September 20
2:02 am
Oh, *hanging head in shame*
Sorry, sorry, sorry for typing villains wrong. GASP! It’s been a rough day. Forgive my typos, please.
che
September 20
2:04 am
Forgot to add…
I’ll admit I’m not well-versed in the ins and outs of the writing craft, and I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong- I don’t think multiple povs necessarily equates to head-hopping. I’ve always understood head-hopping to mean more the execution of seguing from one pov to another, rather than multiple povs per se.
And with a single pov, the reader sees everything through the eyes of that one person, right? We can only read about that one person’s thoughts and feelings, but not those of the other characters because she or he can’t possibly know what another person is thinking or feeling. So, no, I don’t consider that lazy writing.
PS thanks Shiloh, I’ll check it out.
Anonymous
September 20
2:09 am
Seriously old fa*t here. When I was young (and dinosaurs roamed the planet) the only POV was the heroine’s. There were descriptions of what the hero might be thinking, the heroine thinks, “Gee whiz, he looks mad (sad, bad, had) whatever.” Some writers who were proficient with dialog could clue the poor reader in a little better. But for the most part I would finish a romance thinking, “What in all that’s holy does he see in her?” The first book I read (and I can’t for the life of me recall whose) with the hero’s POV included absolutely enchanted me. ‘Course somebody comes up with a good idea and then a lot of other folks jump on Nora’s ban wagon, sometimes with limited success. Not Nora. Ok, never Nora. Rabid fan here.
But by and large, I spend most of my day stuck in my own head and I enjoy reading books written from a variety of POV, even the bad guys.
–Jackie L.
Marissa Scott
September 20
2:26 am
Does it suck that your book was rejected? Absolutely! But suck it up! Cry into your coffee, complain to your friends, but keep names off the internet for your own future sake!
I totally agree with you Kate!
The author behind that post, or any author for that matter, needs to keep things like that private. Bitch amongst your friends, in IMs and via email to one another… but only with those who you’d trust with your life… because otherwise? You just look like a twit
N
September 20
2:28 am
There’s a huge difference between head-hopping and multiple POVs. Even in multiple, the POVs are self-contained. Head-hopping goes randomly from person to person, making it hard for the reader to keep up with whose POV they’re in at any given moment.
Personally? I love reading the villains POV. It can add an intriguing psychological element to the story if done well.
I also think the idea that readers can’t handle more than a couple POVs is rather insulting to the reader. (And I’m on the opposite side of the fence as Teddy: I think it’s the lazy writers who can only be bothered to include one or two POVs. Strictly IMO, it’s much harder to write multiple, but brilliant if it’s done well.) As for multiple POVs being “clean” or not…that depends on the author.
Candice Gilmer
September 20
2:35 am
I tend to want to jump into the “execution” standpoint on multiple points of view.
And myself, though I prefer multiple points of view, I absolutely cannot stand when a story flips from one POV to another in the same scene without some kind of break in the scene (Even a blank line is better).
I’ve picked up books and had to toss them out because the story rocked so badly from one character’s pov to another without changing scenes.
che
September 20
2:43 am
There’s a huge difference between head-hopping and multiple POVs. Even in multiple, the POVs are self-contained. Head-hopping goes randomly from person to person, making it hard for the reader to keep up with whose POV they’re in at any given moment.
That’s what I was trying to say, but you said it better. Thanks.
Teddy Pig
September 20
3:23 am
“And I’m on the opposite side of the fence as Teddy: I think it’s the lazy writers who can only be bothered to include one or two POVs. Strictly IMO, it’s much harder to write multiple, but brilliant if it’s done well.”
Nope, sorry I disagree, it takes much more planning and work to do one or two POV’s for a book.
How do I know?
I fight with someone all the time to switch POV’s while I outline.
She is correct though, the clarity, the flow, of one or two POV’s is better than head-hopping.
Which is a far more easier way to get your scene with all the info in context.
That is the reason I use “Lazy” because “I” am lazy, and a horrid writer, and just want to get that scene done, dump the information, to hit the next one.
Anonymous
September 20
3:45 am
I’m curious if there was ever a romance written entirely in the hero’s pov?
Isn’t Northern Lights by Nora Roberts all in the hero’s pov?
Great Book!!
-Donna
vanessa jaye
September 20
3:54 am
My long rambling posts seems to have gone missing. The short of it:
1. I recently read two of J.A. Konrath’s mysteries. Both started in the hero’s pov. Both were very well done.
2. I suspect for the author/editor in question it’s partly subjective, partly all in the execution.
3. Case in point, the ms Samhain recently contracted with me has 4 povs.
4. Headhopping when done well, doesn’t bother me. I hardly notice it. Multiple povs (which I feel is something different from headhopping) can pull me out of the book if a cast of a thousand is involved.
Hi, I'm Emjai!
September 20
4:15 am
I think when multiple POV’s are done very well a villain’s shouldn’t be a problem but I find it more fun to discover (as a reader and a writer) what the villain is up to through the eyes of the H/H. But that’s just me.
che
September 20
4:17 am
Isn’t Northern Lights by Nora Roberts all in the hero’s pov?
Adding another book to check out. Love Nora Roberts- have read a handful of hers, but I’m so intimidated by her back list that I don’t know which ones to get. Thanks.
Ann Aguirre
September 20
4:33 am
I’m with Keishon. I tend not to enjoy villain POV, but I won’t discard a book because of it. Skanky villain sex, on the other hand, included just for the sake of showing how nasty and evil he is… c’mon. That’s almost always a deal-breaker for me.
kis
September 20
6:32 am
I would challenge Teddy Pig to read just one volume of George R.R. Martin’s Song of Ice and Fire and claim he is a lazy writer.
Okay, Martin writes epic fantasy, and I read a lot of epic fantasy, so maybe I’m biased, but I overwhelmingly prefer multiple POV. That does not mean head-hopping! There must be a clear scene or POV break for every POV transition–anything less is lazy. With a few exceptions, the only thing more boring to me as a reader than single close third, is first person. I want to know the other important characters–especially the hero!–as intimately as I know the heroine.
Maybe it’s because as a youngster, my first foray into novel-length fiction was in the SFF genre. For me, the most interesting stories will always involve the thoughts and feelings of more than one person.
The villain’s POV can actually be the most interesting of all–as long as he isn’t just some eeeevildoerrr who was born bad. Rapists and murderers don’t all go around thinking about how bad they are–they have rationalizations for everything the do, and that moral disconnect can be fascinating.
Dionne Galace
September 20
6:56 am
Skanky villain sex, on the other hand, included just for the sake of showing how nasty and evil he is… c’mon.
And sometimes… they’re also gay. The villain loves to have buttsecks with other men, so of course he must be EVOLLLL.
Oddly enough, the buttsecks is no longer equated with skanky villainy anymore. It’s everywhere!
Dawn
September 20
8:42 am
I love to read multiple POVs (note Teddy Pig – no apostrophe [Sorry this is one of my hot buttons!]).
I even enjoy reading the bad guy’s POV if it doesn’t take over the story. I’ve read several books where the end of the chapter is a few paragraphs inside the villain’s head.
Re romance books from the hero’s POV a few years back I read “Marriage of Agreement” by Judith Duncan (Silhouette Sensation). That was entirely from the man’s POV. It was OK, but I frustrated by not knowing what the woman was thinking. In fact I liked it less than 1st person POV and I really don’t like those.
Sarah McCarty
September 20
10:51 am
I’m with the majority in that it’s in the execution. I do tend not to like more than two POV’s and if there are more than two POV’s I want the other POV’s introduced to be integral to the story, NOT just one scene from Mom’s POV, and then a scene from a sisters POV, and then yet another from the villian’s. That drives me crazy because putting a scene in a character’s POV to me is a signal that this character is important. Just jumping from POV to POV because an author doesn’t have the skill or want to take the time to make their point in the flow of the story makes a book a wall banger for me. Head hopping within paragraphs or even within a sentence also makes me crazy. I do expect a certain level of technique in a published book and one skill that’s a biggie for me is how to transition POV. I don’t really care how many times an author does it as long as I’m not stopped by it.
Villian’s POV- In Romantic suspense as opposed to suspense where you don’t know whose coming out alive in the end, I do not like the villain’s POV beyond fragments of thought to increase tension. The reason for this is in Romantic suspense, I know the hero and heroine are going to be alive at the end of the book, therefore, the suspense lies in the mystery of who is doing it and why. That mystery is completely ruined if the author tells me through his POV who the villain is and why they are doing it and renders the suspense aspect of the book null and void, and for me as a reader, pointless.
Ann Bruce
September 20
1:17 pm
Skanky villain sex, on the other hand, included just for the sake of showing how nasty and evil he is… c’mon.
And sometimes… they’re also gay. The villain loves to have buttsecks with other men, so of course he must be EVOLLLL.
For once, I’d like to read about a prude villain and skanky H/H.
Any out there?
That mystery is completely ruined if the author tells me through his POV who the villain is and why they are doing it and renders the suspense aspect of the book null and void, and for me as a reader, pointless.
Sometimes the chase and capture are more thrilling, though. Because, for me, not a lot of romantic suspense leaves me wondering who the villain is. It’s pretty obvious. I’m currently reading LH’s Up Close and Dangerous and after 6 pages, I figured out the identity of the villain (yes, I checked the back to confirm).
Ann Bruce
September 20
1:19 pm
Sorry, correction: 6 pages into chapter 2.
Nora Roberts
September 20
1:32 pm
~That mystery is completely ruined if the author tells me through his POV who the villain is and why they are doing it and renders the suspense aspect of the book null and void, and for me as a reader, pointless.~
I dunno, not for me. I like howcatchums, too.
Shannon Stacey
September 20
2:14 pm
John Sandford. He could open every book with “Hi, my name is Bob Smith, and I’m the villain for this story” and I’d still be on the edge of my seat. In fact, while he’s more subtle, the Prey books do almost open like that. But the suspense is in the cat and mouse game. Weather and the kids and sidekicks aside, the primary “relationship” in a Prey book is the one between Lucas and the killer. We usually have a good idea of who and the basic idea of why, but the ‘how is Lucas going to get this guy?’ is one hell of a ride.
The difference, to me, is that in romance the primary relationship is always between the hero and the heroine. So if you open with the villain’s POV, I don’t “know” the people this is going to effect. While I might know going into the scene it effects the heroine because I read in the back cover copy she’s…CSI or something, I haven’t made a connection with her yet. These people in the opening scene aren’t the ones I’m going to have a relationship with, so I don’t think the impact is as strong.
When I open a straight thriller—Sandford/Deaver/etc—and get the villain’s POV, that’s awesome, because I AM going to have a relationship with him. He’s not a catalyst for Frank and Fifi’s romance. He’s the core of the story. I want to know him as well as I know Davenport/Rhyme/etc.
There are just so many nuances of genre/subgenre/definitions of mystery/thriller/suspense, that I don’t think the “V’s POV, yes or no?” question can have an answer.
You know, other than it’s all in the execution. *g*
Mrs Giggles
September 20
2:18 pm
The author should get into the villain’s head only if the villain has something to say that will add to the story. In other words, that villain has better be an interesting character rather than yet another boring stereotypical serial killer (60% of the romantic suspense out there), jealous insane woman who hates our heroine (the other 39% of the romantic suspense out there), or babbling French spy (historical romances).
Marissa Scott
September 20
2:19 pm
Sorry, sorry, sorry for typing villains wrong. GASP! It’s been a rough day. Forgive my typos, please.
Me too. EEEK.
Teddy Pig
September 20
2:56 pm
“Maybe it’s because as a youngster, my first foray into novel-length fiction was in the SFF genre. For me, the most interesting stories will always involve the thoughts and feelings of more than one person.”
Then do not read Andre Norton. A traditional one POV writer.
Marion Zimmer Bradley. A two POV at most writer.
Roger Zelazny. Again a one POV writer.
Multi POV has nothing really to do with genre… well, fantasy with the whole group quest hmmmm… Nah even there you tend to get the story tellers POV.
I just have a strong dislike and opinion about multi-POV which leads to that horrid head-hopping.
“George R.R. Martin’s Song of Ice and Fire and claim he is a lazy writer.”
I might if I can stand it and yes there are bestselling crappy writers out there. As we all know, just because you can sell the crap to the general public does not mean it aint crap.
shiloh walker
September 20
2:58 pm
Sometimes the chase and capture are more thrilling, though. Because, for me, not a lot of romantic suspense leaves me wondering who the villain is.
yeah, I’ll agree to that.
Sarah McCarty
September 20
3:10 pm
What makes RS work is obviously different for every reader, but I, at least, need the mystery of the villain and his/her motivations intact. For me, without that mystery to add uncertainty and spice, the “catchem part” in RS has the monotonous predictability of a road map.
If the romance is good, I’ll skip the parts of the book devoted to the supposed suspense and read the romance, but if the romance is weak, too, then I just don’t finish.
Casee
September 20
3:20 pm
I’m glad Karen Rose wasn’t turned away. Aside from The Perfect Husband by Lisa Gardner, Karen Rose writes the best villain pov. I think she does a great job. Sometimes the reader knows exactly who it is and sometimes they don’t. Either way, she keeps me interested in her books.
I think that’s a bad reason to turn someone down, especially if the writing is good.
kis
September 20
3:33 pm
I might if I can stand it and yes there are bestselling crappy writers out there. As we all know, just because you can sell the crap to the general public does not mean it aint crap.
*sigh* David Gemmell, then? Or Stephen R. Donaldson (his SF, not his F)? Guy Gavriel Kay?
I just have a strong dislike and opinion about multi-POV which leads to that horrid head-hopping.
I, too, have a strong dislike and opinion about [poorly done] multi-POV which [in a lazy writer's hands] leads to that horrid head-hopping. In fact head-hopping–that is, changing POV even once within a scene, or having the POV character know something s/he couldn’t possibly know–drives me nuts. Even in romance, I hate the constant switching back and forth that tends to happen during the sex scenes.
And it’s fine not to care for a certain style of writing. Me, I think lobster is just a big disgusting bug that lives in the water. Doesn’t stop a bunch of people from forking over their money to eat it. I don’t go around telling them they’re eating crap, though.
Anon 76
September 20
3:45 pm
First off, in the snippet of the rejection letter posted here, I believe the author is stirring the “reader” pot. Insinuating that the editor believes readers are too thick to deal with multiple POV’s.
I absolutely do not read it that way. Perhaps the editor should have used the term “the threads of YOUR story”. (Mayhap she did and this section was paraphrased.)
If you follow the link to the author’s blog, there’s a bit more of the editor’s letter. In it, there is an interesting clue.
Was the ENTIRE first CHAPTER written in the evil doer’s POV?
If not, I apologize. But if so, even for a person like me who loves multiple POV’s, well the chapter had best be outstanding and have the book to back it up.
Teddy Pig
September 20
4:42 pm
“And it’s fine not to care for a certain style of writing.”
I just do not think of it as a style so much. Not the way it gets misused, not the way I have learned to hate it.
I do not think writing was discovered yesterday. I do not think there would be writing classes devoted to teaching about POV for no particular reason.
I am sure other good writers whom I love and respect, who are noted great writers, may have contemplated using more than two POV’s but those smart, critically acclaimed, great writers did not use it.
Why? Could it be an unfocused weak way of telling the story?
I THINK SO
“I don’t go around telling them they’re eating crap, though.”
Not unless you can give a “valid reason” why you have that opinion.
Nora Roberts
September 20
7:26 pm
No point in arguing or debating POV preferences. I would say that claiming any writer who uses multiple POV is a lazy writer, or a crappy one, that the choice is an unfocused and weak, edges over the opinion line.
I’d use Sandford again (love him, too, Shannon) as an example of a critically acclaimed writer who uses multiple POVs. I can’t imagine considering his work unfocused or weak.
King’s amazing The Stand has multiple POVs, as does much if not all of his other work. He won The National Book Award, didn’t he? Or something like it. (bad memory) That’s what I’d call critical acclaim.
McMurty won the Pulitzer for Lonesome Dove–a hell of a lot of POVs in that one.
Don’t like multiple POVs, okay. Hate them, okay, too. But to say any writer who employs this stylistic choice is a crappy writer is far too general and encompassing a statement.
shiloh walker
September 20
7:28 pm
I am sure other good writers whom I love and respect, who are noted great writers, may have contemplated using more than two POV’s but those smart, critically acclaimed, great writers did not use it.
They are good writers that tell from more than one or two POVs, Teddy. Maybe not in your opinion, but just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean the same goes for everybody.
If somebody is bringing in random POVs from people that mean less than nothing to a story, it doesn’t work. But using multiple POV doesn’t mean the author is lazy. Using it as filler is lazy. Not researching your material is lazy. Throwing in stuff for shock value is lazy.
But multiple POV can, and does, work for a lot of books. What about romances that have some complex subplots outside the hero and the heroine? It’s not unheard of~a good, coherent sub-plot, in my opinion, is a mark of an accomplished author. A lot of us love a good subplot. But we’re not going to know about those if we have only have the POV of the two main characters.
I’m not saying this because I write from multiple POV and I feel all offended about your comments~I don’t expect everybody to like what I write, and often I’m still amazed that anybody does. I decided that long ago I could either write… or worry if I’m pleasing the vast majority of the known world. Can’t do both.
No, I’m saying this because I love reading multiple POV.
You’re entitled to your opinion and if you think something is crap, you got that right~however, everybody else has that same right. And they should be able to express their opinions without feeling like somebody is jumping down their throat with steel-spiked boots.
Sometimes, you’ve got a way of speaking that more or less says… if you don’t agree with me 100%, then you’re an idiot not worth speaking to
It can get kind of insulting.
kis
September 20
7:42 pm
POV in literary terms, or point of view in the general sense, I get the impression some folks are only ever interested in one. But if that’s the case, it makes me wonder why they would bother reading all these comments, only to refuse to consider the validity of anyone else’s opinion.
Nora Roberts
September 20
7:42 pm
~It can get kind of insulting.~
Okay, yeah, no point in not just saying it straight out.
I’ve written with multiple POVs for the vast majority of my career.
Saying I don’t like NR’s work because I hate multiple POVs or hate POV shifts, okay.
Basically saying, NR (or whoever else) is a lazy writer, one who writes weak, unfocused crap is pretty insulting.
Again, it’s all in the execution, including voicing opinions.
roslynholcomb
September 20
8:04 pm
I don’t read romantic suspense, so I really have no dog in that fight.
Maybe because I cut my teeth reading Nora Roberts (At least until she switched to romantic suspense.) I actually prefer multiple POVs. I also like writing them. I don’t understand why people say it’s confusing. Maybe I’m more tunnel-visioned than most, but I never get the POVs mixed up. (Unless it’s a sucky book, and in that case POV isn’t really the problem.)
Jackie
September 20
8:16 pm
It’s absolutely about the execution. Some stories work perfectly with one first-person POV; others in multiple first-person POVs; still others in third-person close; and still others in third-person omniscient. The author has to be skilled enough to pull it off.
Also, I think certain genres lend themselves better to certain POVs. Urban fantasy seems to lean heavily toward the single first-person POV; romantic suspense toward third-person close, with multiple POVs.
And yes, I like reading the villain’s POV.
Michelle
September 20
9:44 pm
Some other fantasy writers with multiple POV: Robert Jordan (may he rest in peace), Megan Whalen Turner-she is only an award winning writer.
Teddy Pig
September 20
10:33 pm
Nora,
You selected at least two books I have tried to read, both Lonesome Dove and The Stand were books I stopped reading and walked away from. They failed.
The Stand had other issues that were bad though.
“Basically saying, NR (or whoever else) is a lazy writer, one who writes weak, unfocused crap is pretty insulting.”
That is not what I said.
KateS
September 20
10:33 pm
Wow, this got heated! As always Teddy managed to make sweeping generalities that got everyone fired up.
Well, I have to say I’ve been slightly changed recently – er, today – about the villain in books. I read Kresley Cole’s MacCarrick series (whoa, hot Highlanders). While none of these books ever had a “secret” villain – you knew who they were fighting right away – the first book didn’t have anything from the bad guy’s POV, and I loved it. The second book HAD the villain’s POV and I liked it. I can’t say I LOVED it, but I don’t believe the author could have explained his whole psychosis in one summary paragraph as he’s brought to his demise. It was a buildup, a few places where you see into his POV, really understanding who that villain is and why he did what he did.
There were multiple POVs without headhopping, and that’s the way I like most of my books. Should that be a hard and fast rule? Obviously not. We’ve shown that what works for one does not necessarily work for others.
I also recently read some older Sandra Brown books, and there was headhopping EVERYWHERE. But I never notice it, because the writing is so good. THAT’S how you can pull that off, as obviously Nora manages to with hers.
Ok, I’m done for today.
Emma
September 20
10:39 pm
I recently read a story that started in the villain’s pov. It was chilling, creepy and brilliant.
Until this post I hadn’t really thought much on the subject but like a lot of things it’s a matter of personal taste. The same story I read may not appeal to everyone but that’s just life.
And like a lot of adversity in life, it comes down to lemonade. You can either take the lemon handed to you and watch it rot or you can take it and turn it into something positive and appealing.
Everyone deals with rejection differently. It stings. It can be a blow to the ego but is it worth burning a bridge and possibly casting yourself in a negative light?
*shrugs* I guess that’s a matter of personal taste as well.
I don’t read romantic suspense, so I really have no dog in that fight. Bwhahahahahaha.
Teddy Pig
September 20
11:15 pm
“As always Teddy managed to make sweeping generalities that got everyone fired up.”
I’m bored and I have to write this review and re-read this other thing.
I wore a swan hat and used a feather boa when I did the sweeping gesture thing though.
kis
September 20
11:36 pm
I don’t think it’s Teddy’s opinion so much as his delivery.
…both Lonesome Dove and The Stand were books I stopped reading and walked away from. They failed.
What you mean is, they failed for you.
It is obvious that they did not fail for a whole lot of other people, and that doesn’t mean those people are stupid or uneducated or unsubtle or philistines. They just aren’t you. But you have a way of stating your opinion that makes others feel they are not entitled to theirs. You speak in absolutes: If Teddy don’t like it, it’s crap.
Claiming that’s not what you said seems inadequate now, when it’s so obvious it’s what you meant.
If you say that writers only use a certain style out of laziness, then it follows that all writers who use that style are lazy. You put the dots out there. Don’t get all defensive when others connect them.
Nora Roberts
September 20
11:49 pm
~They failed.~
No, they didn’t. You didn’t like them, so they failed for YOU. They did not fail for me, or pretty much millions of others. Doesn’t make you wrong that you didn’t like them. Makes it your taste, to which you’re absolutely entitled.
They triumphed for me. Which makes them brilliant, for my taste. To which I’m absolutely entitled. For others they may hit either of those extremes, or anywhere in between.
And you did, in essence say I was a lazy writer, that my books were crap, and weak and unfocused, as you said, repeatedly, any book written with more than one or two POV was all of that. I write books with multiple POVs. Really, really hard to interpret your statements any other way.
And really, Teddy, bringing up the swan hat when people are calling you on your very definite statements is kinda lame.
Teddy Pig
September 20
11:51 pm
“Claiming that’s not what you said seems inadequate now, when it’s so obvious it’s what you meant.”
“Don’t get all defensive when others connect them.”
Ok, I won’t. You assume anything you please.
Nora Roberts
September 20
11:52 pm
~If you say that writers only use a certain style out of laziness, then it follows that all writers who use that style are lazy~
Well, yeah, I have to say this is exactly how it came across to me.
Karen Scott
September 20
11:57 pm
Teddy, at this point, I think you should just concede that different things work for different people, and leave it at that.
Anonymous
September 21
1:40 am
Karen, Teddy just has a different POV on POVs. Thanks for the no apostrophe tip from somebody higher in the thread too.
Ooh, I tried to post earlier, but my computer is stupid. My verification word was “y bich.” Why, indeed. Are you borrowing from the SB’s? It was great.
–Jackie L.
N
September 21
3:31 am
I wore a swan hat and used a feather boa when I did the sweeping gesture thing though.
Personally, I think this is pretty damn funny. LOL! You kill me, Teddy (and a few others should lighten up and have a bit o’ fun).
shiloh walker
September 21
12:46 pm
(and a few others should lighten up and have a bit o’ fun).
Yeah, I’ve been doing that since I started reading Karen’s blog~and comments from Teddy~ been doing it for ages, or at least since I found Karen’s blog.
Usually, I’ll either shrug over his comments, ignore his comments. Sometimes I do agree with his opinions, but even when I do, I don’t always respond … because he makes his commentary in such a way that is going insult or piss off at least one group of people. Now please understand, I have no qualms pissing somebody off if needed. Sometimes an honest opinion just does that and it’s a fact of life. But there’s a way to voice an opinion, even one that will bother others, without being insulting.
He’s either never learned that tactic, or he doesn’t care. I’m not much for randomly insulting anybody, even if I am willing to piss a person off if the need arises~and I try not to do it so randomly that it becomes a blanket insult.
But Teddy? Not much for pissing off the individual, that Teddy. Nope, he seems determined to use that boa to spread his insults to the masses.
Personally, I didn’t feel insulted by his comments. Yeah, I write from multiple POV, but he doesn’t know me. He doesn’t know how much time, how much work, how much thought I put into books so he doesn’t know if I’m lazy or not. Since he’s talking so generally about something, and doesn’t know me, I find it pretty easy to shrug off pretty much every thing he says. And I do mean pretty much everything. Even the few times I’ve agreed with him, his execution leaves a lot to be desired.
I’m not picking on Teddy. He is how is and he shows no desire to try to be a little less insulting for the masses. But after months of seeing the guy sling out insults left and right, it gets tiresome~and tedious. So this time I said something.
As to lightening up…these people are entitled to their opinions, just like Teddy’s entitled to his rather strong opinions. If he can spout off… why can’t others?
Anonymous
September 21
12:50 pm
Well, I didn’t much care until Andre Norton came into the mix. At least a couple of her books were written from dual points of view in alternating chapters. She stated that this was a technique she picked up from a French chanson de geste whose name I once could remember–ah Aucassin et Nicolette (thank you Google).
Teddy Pig
September 21
2:24 pm
“I’m not picking on Teddy. He is how is and he shows no desire to try to be a little less insulting for the masses. But after months of seeing the guy sling out insults left and right, it gets tiresome~and tedious. So this time I said something.”
What you had to say was fine. I had no problems with it.
I did make a general statement about my likes and dislikes in writing which is always highly debatable.
I do not mind getting taken to task on them and will be glad to discuss.
But when people want to turn my opinion about writing into some type of personal attack… that’s so not on me.
shiloh walker
September 21
2:40 pm
But when people want to turn my opinion about writing into some type of personal attack… that’s so not on me.
But you don’t see that it comes off as an attack.
You repeatedly said that writing from multiple POV is unfocused. It’s sloppy. There were references to laziness and that you imagined many great writer thought about writing multiple view, many esteemed writers, but they thought better of it because it would be unfocused.
That translates as…
anybody that writes multiple POV is unfocused, lazy.
Whether you realize it or not. I am not telling you that you shouldn’t think that way. But you don’t even word things so that it reads more like
Yeah, it might work for some. It doesn’t for me. It seems too disjointed and unfocused.
That says the same thing. But it doesn’t come off as insult.
Casee
September 21
2:46 pm
One of the reasons I don’t like reading 1st person books is because I love multiple POV’s. That doesn’t mean I think Janet Evanovich is a bad writer. It just means that 1st person isn’t my thing.
Linda Howard is one of my all time favorite authors. I tried to read her Blair Mallory books that were in 1st person, but couldn’t get into them. Does that mean she’s lazy for not writing from more than one pov? Not at all. To me it meant that she just used her creativity in other ways.
kis
September 21
3:12 pm
Shiloh, I agree. I have no problem with the fact that he doesn’t like something, or the reason why, but the way he states it just gets people’s backs up. For someone interested in a communicative thing like fiction, he seems to see communication in very one-way terms. He says things that are bound to be interpreted a certain way–not just by one person, but by many–and then he claims he didn’t mean it that way at all, and blames others for misreading him. But if there is misinterpretation, over and over it seems, that doesn’t reflect on their comminication skills. It reflects on his.
He is entitled to his opinion and I do consider the source. But honestly, no one likes being told they like to read, or write, crap.
Honestly, one day he’s gonna be standing in a crowd of inner city youth and say something like, “Anyone who likes rap music is a tone-deaf moron,” and when he does, I’ll feel very sorry for him.
Teddy Pig
September 21
4:53 pm
“no one likes being told they like to read, or write, crap.”
Then stay away from Steven King’s Entertainment Weekly column.
“I believe that 70 percent of the fiction and nonfiction best-seller list is dreck, and that The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown, stands as a prime example.” – Steven King
I remembered this when The Stand was brought up.
Bonnie Dee
September 21
4:59 pm
The villain’s POV can actually be the most interesting of all–as long as he isn’t just some eeeevildoerrr who was born bad.”
Well said. All characters are interesting, not just the heroes. If it’s used judiciously, I like a glimpse of the killer’s thoughts now and again. It arouses nervous anticipation that he’s still out there and soon to be coming after our heroes.
Teddy Pig
September 21
5:21 pm
Oh sorry, replace Stephen where I typed Steven.
Nora Roberts
September 21
6:29 pm
For me, it’s a different tone to say: I believe 70% of the fiction and non-fiction bestseller list is dreck, than to say: 70% of the fiction and non-fiction bestseller list is crap.
One is opinion, the other a statement.
That’s really all there is to it for me.
Teddy Pig
September 21
8:17 pm
Quoted from my first comment up top there…
“Just my opinion.”
Rosemary
September 22
12:24 am
Ah! Rejection and the reasons editors give often seem to make little sense.
I’m pretty much convinced often they don’t have a reason other than the book doesn’t grab them but not wanting to say “I just don’t like it” they try to give a reason.
And at least she got some feedback. That’s edging it toward a ‘;good’ rejection. Many rejections come as a from letter – I’ve even had them rubber stamped on my own cover letter.
Anonymous
September 22
7:14 pm
If the writer’s execution had been good, if she had written a compelling story & written it really well, none of this would have mattered. Books get published all the time that break rules & are different. Fact is, she didn’t write a story good enough to be published by this particular publisher, & these are just some excuses she was given.
Series Non Fiction Ebooks
February 3
3:51 am
Private eBook Resale Right: What is it & Advantages vs. Disadvantages…
Maybe you’re still wondering if you should get into the eBook resale right business. Is it worth your time, effort, and money? Well, it doesn’t take much money, so you can scratch that off, but it does take time and effort. There is a way, however, t…