Return to White Hound fan-fiction
N° of hits since January 2006:
Jump to:
Mary Sues and Marty Stus On Mastery On Aristocracy On Recovery On Onyx Orbs On Grammar and Spelling On Grown-Up Language A Note to Aspiring Poets
FANFICTION FOLLIES Some common errors in fanfiction which are best avoided. More will be added as I think of them.
Some common errors in fanfiction which are best avoided. More will be added as I think of them.
Mary Sues and Marty Stus How to spot a Mary Sue:- Much has been written on the subject of Mary Sues, which (who?) are often confused with self-inserts (and are named after a character in a memorably bad early Star Trek fanfic). A self-insert is an OC (original character) who bears some resemblance to the author and/or is the author's alter ego, through whom they imagine themselves into the story. Done right, and assuming that the author has a reasonably interesting personality, there is in fact nothing wrong with this. A high proportion of all central characters in literature are at least partial self-inserts - Jane Austen's heroines, for example - and JK Rowling has admitted that Hermione is a self-insert. The problem with Mary Sues is not that they are self-inserts but that they aren't; for they are not the author as she is but as she wishes she was. [I say "she," but there is a male equivalent, often called a Marty Stu or Gary Stu.] A typical Mary Sue is unrealistically multi-talented and beautiful; is described in a way which pays excessive, florid attention to just how talented and beautiful she is; takes centre-stage to the point of eclipsing the other characters; saves the day in a way which makes the other characters look like mere backdrop; and usually seduces one or more of the regular characters, regardless of whether she is really the sort of person they would be likely to like. If she has physical or mental flaws, they tend to be either romantic ones (blindness, for example) or have rather obviously been added on just so the writer can claim she isn't a Sue. Her background is often melodramatic, and she (and her author) rarely has much sense of humour. They exist in regular literature too, of course. Van Helsing, for example, is a flagrant Marty Stu. Sister Fidelma, the heroine of Peter Tremayne's mystery stories set in seventh century Ireland (a fascinating series as regards the cultural background and plotting, but rather lame when it comes to characterization), is likewise something of a Mary Sue, and also highlights another problem which is often seen with such characters, and in bad writing generally. We are told that "her pale, fresh face and piercing green eyes [cut] hardly concealed a bubbling vitality and sense of humour", but when we actually see her actions and words we see precious little sign of vitality and none at all of any sense of humour, other than an irritating tendency to smirk to herself at random moments. It is not enough to simply say that your character has this or this attractive characteristic: you need to actually show them having it. And it is a bad idea to endow your character with a characteristic, especially humour, which you yourself don't have and can't fake. Provided you aren't totally thick you can fake high intelligence in a character by having them understand the same things you understand, only faster; but it's almost impossible to fake humour, maturity or sophistication convincingly if you don't have them yourself. This is why fanfiction is littered with adult characters acting like fifteen-year-olds.
How to spot a Mary Sue:-
Much has been written on the subject of Mary Sues, which (who?) are often confused with self-inserts (and are named after a character in a memorably bad early Star Trek fanfic).
A self-insert is an OC (original character) who bears some resemblance to the author and/or is the author's alter ego, through whom they imagine themselves into the story. Done right, and assuming that the author has a reasonably interesting personality, there is in fact nothing wrong with this. A high proportion of all central characters in literature are at least partial self-inserts - Jane Austen's heroines, for example - and JK Rowling has admitted that Hermione is a self-insert.
The problem with Mary Sues is not that they are self-inserts but that they aren't; for they are not the author as she is but as she wishes she was. [I say "she," but there is a male equivalent, often called a Marty Stu or Gary Stu.] A typical Mary Sue is unrealistically multi-talented and beautiful; is described in a way which pays excessive, florid attention to just how talented and beautiful she is; takes centre-stage to the point of eclipsing the other characters; saves the day in a way which makes the other characters look like mere backdrop; and usually seduces one or more of the regular characters, regardless of whether she is really the sort of person they would be likely to like. If she has physical or mental flaws, they tend to be either romantic ones (blindness, for example) or have rather obviously been added on just so the writer can claim she isn't a Sue. Her background is often melodramatic, and she (and her author) rarely has much sense of humour.
They exist in regular literature too, of course. Van Helsing, for example, is a flagrant Marty Stu.
Sister Fidelma, the heroine of Peter Tremayne's mystery stories set in seventh century Ireland (a fascinating series as regards the cultural background and plotting, but rather lame when it comes to characterization), is likewise something of a Mary Sue, and also highlights another problem which is often seen with such characters, and in bad writing generally. We are told that "her pale, fresh face and piercing green eyes [cut] hardly concealed a bubbling vitality and sense of humour", but when we actually see her actions and words we see precious little sign of vitality and none at all of any sense of humour, other than an irritating tendency to smirk to herself at random moments. It is not enough to simply say that your character has this or this attractive characteristic: you need to actually show them having it. And it is a bad idea to endow your character with a characteristic, especially humour, which you yourself don't have and can't fake. Provided you aren't totally thick you can fake high intelligence in a character by having them understand the same things you understand, only faster; but it's almost impossible to fake humour, maturity or sophistication convincingly if you don't have them yourself. This is why fanfiction is littered with adult characters acting like fifteen-year-olds.
How to avoid writing one:-
It is a very bad sign if the story pays too much attention to how good-looking the character is, especially on the first page. It is inadvisable to harp on too much about the character's looks on any page, unless they are particularly relevant to the plot. It is a particularly bad sign if the story opens with the character gazing at themselves in a mirror, unless a) they are somebody whose looks are their stock in trade, such as a glamorous actress; or b) they are preparing for a big date or audition; or c) their vanity is a major plot-point; or d) they are counting their spots, or similar.
It is also a bad sign if the character has a very flowery, romantic name. This is a little difficult in Harry Potter stories because some of the canon characters have flowery names and that is a part of their culture; but even in the Potterverse, it's a good idea to avoid names which sound soppy or too obviously made-up. Made-up, fancy names like Melodia or Megan-Storm do exist in Britain, but are generally seen as proof that the person is of very low social class.
It's perfectly permissible to have a character who is talented and able, but they shouldn't be good at absolutely everything unless there is a very good, plot-central reason for it. [I'm thinking here of the multi-talented, athletic and handsome Dr Bashir in Deep Space Nine, who turned out to have been genetically modified to make him that way, and who had a nasty feeling that his parents had thereby murdered the learning-impaired child he was born to be.]
If the character is going to turn out to be especially good at some skill which will save the day, there should be some established reason why they are likely to have that skill. If the character is introduced as a martial arts teacher from Day One, for example, it's reasonable for them to turn out to be an aikido expert; if they're a waitress and they suddenly produce this amazing skill without it having been mentioned before, that's Suey.
The canon characters should be as competent and pro-active as they are in canon. Even if the OC makes a significant contribution, the canon characters should not just sit around going "Gosh, we don't know how we would have managed without you."
If you take my own OC Lynsey, for example, she's reasonably clever and able, but no more so than is common among British Science Fiction fans. She's in her early forties; her appearance is never described or even commented on, other than that she is tallish, fairly heavily built and not actively revolting; and although her character is fleshed out enough to be interesting, she exists mainly as a foil for the canon characters and a viewpoint through which to observe them, and there is never any doubt that the story is primarily about the canon characters rather than about her.
Even if they are highly intelligent, teenage OCs should not in general turn out to be more mature and wise than most of the adult characters, unless it's been established that they have an unusual degree of life experience for one so young (e.g. they grew up in a war zone, or they have been caring for their disabled mother since they were nine, or similar).
Do not forget that teenagers of both sexes usually have spots, and teenage boys have facial hair.
If the OC is going to seduce one of the canon characters, care should be put into making the OC be the sort of person that canon character is likely to prefer, or at least be intrigued by, or at least not actively run screaming from.
The character should have realistic flaws and foibles. Nobody is perfect - and if they were, they'd be boring. Take a look at JK Rowling's writing, as she is a past-mistress at inventing characters who are basically good but who also have real people-type flaws. Consider Molly Weasley: kind, loving, generous, also shrill, domineering and inclined to treat her children as extensions of her own ambitions. Or the inimitable Professor Snape: brave, brilliant, honourable, dedicated, witty, also petty, vindictive, childish, tactless and sulky.
On Mastery On the subject of Snape, fanon generally assumes that the term "Potions master" means that he holds some specific professional qualification in Potions. In fact "master" is a general term for any male teacher at a British boarding school (the female equivalent being "mistress"). On the other hand, the wizarding world doesn't always use such terms the same way the real or Muggle world does. In the real world, a professor is usually a senior lecturer at a university, but Hogwarts uses it of any teacher of an academic subject. Since the only teachers (other than the Headmaster and Deputy Headmistress) who are referred to as "master" in the books are Snape, Slughorn and Flitwick, whilst the other male teachers are just called teachers, it may be that in this case the term indicates a teacher with higher academic or managerial status than the bog-standard level. It is quite possible that it means that Snape has some sort of higher qualification, equivalent to a BSc or even an MSc, but it is unlikely that it represents the sort of ultra-high-level, "only five Potions Masters in Europe" sort of achievement which is often assumed in fanfiction.
On the subject of Snape, fanon generally assumes that the term "Potions master" means that he holds some specific professional qualification in Potions. In fact "master" is a general term for any male teacher at a British boarding school (the female equivalent being "mistress").
On the other hand, the wizarding world doesn't always use such terms the same way the real or Muggle world does. In the real world, a professor is usually a senior lecturer at a university, but Hogwarts uses it of any teacher of an academic subject. Since the only teachers (other than the Headmaster and Deputy Headmistress) who are referred to as "master" in the books are Snape, Slughorn and Flitwick, whilst the other male teachers are just called teachers, it may be that in this case the term indicates a teacher with higher academic or managerial status than the bog-standard level. It is quite possible that it means that Snape has some sort of higher qualification, equivalent to a BSc or even an MSc, but it is unlikely that it represents the sort of ultra-high-level, "only five Potions Masters in Europe" sort of achievement which is often assumed in fanfiction.
On Aristocracy Also, fanon tended to portray Snape as an aristocrat, and got a nasty shock when HBP showed us his real background. Many fanwriters still refuse to accept that he isn't some sort of darkly brooding nobleman. But it was obvious from the first that Snape was lower middle class at best. Real aristocrats don't swish about in elegant robes being all austere and reserved and speaking in purring, silky tones; they have hard carrying cut-glass voices which can slay at thirty paces and wear old clothes covered in dog drool and get into fights in pubs, because they have an absolute cast-iron certainty that whatever they do must be the right thing to do because it's them that's doing it. Dumbledore, with his eccentricity and his lurid clothes and his game-playing and his sub-literate, goat-fancying brother could easily be an aristocrat (although the family history given in DH suggests he may be middle-class). Snape is a working class boy who tries too hard. By the same token, it's obvious that the Weasleys are far older and posher than the Malfoys, and Lucius knows it and resents it. There's a saying about the British class system that "The people who matter don't mind, and the people who mind don't matter." Lucius is far too touchy about how much class he has to actually have any.
Also, fanon tended to portray Snape as an aristocrat, and got a nasty shock when HBP showed us his real background. Many fanwriters still refuse to accept that he isn't some sort of darkly brooding nobleman. But it was obvious from the first that Snape was lower middle class at best. Real aristocrats don't swish about in elegant robes being all austere and reserved and speaking in purring, silky tones; they have hard carrying cut-glass voices which can slay at thirty paces and wear old clothes covered in dog drool and get into fights in pubs, because they have an absolute cast-iron certainty that whatever they do must be the right thing to do because it's them that's doing it.
Dumbledore, with his eccentricity and his lurid clothes and his game-playing and his sub-literate, goat-fancying brother could easily be an aristocrat (although the family history given in DH suggests he may be middle-class). Snape is a working class boy who tries too hard.
By the same token, it's obvious that the Weasleys are far older and posher than the Malfoys, and Lucius knows it and resents it. There's a saying about the British class system that "The people who matter don't mind, and the people who mind don't matter." Lucius is far too touchy about how much class he has to actually have any.
On Recovery There exists a whole category of story known as Hurt/Comfort in which somebody is injured or depressed and other people rally round to help them. Usually, the attraction of the Hurt part of the story is that it builds dramatic tension and engages the reader's sympathies very intensely with the person being hurt, making them care about them and want to help them; and then the Comfort part shows them getting that help. Such stories are often a way of breaking down the barriers surrounding a solitary character and enabling them and the people helping them to learn to know each other much better. Not for nothing were the first fannish H/C fics written about Spock: although there exists at least one very good mainstream example from the 1920s - The Wounded Name by D.K. Broster. Traditionally, the "comfort" part of the story predominates. For example, in the multi-chapter Potterverse story The Price We Pay by Ilmare2 Snape disappears and is presumed dead, but when the war ends he is discovered in a prison cell, traumatized, catatonic and close to death after eight months of torture. The story consists of one chapter describing what was done to him to reduce him to that state, with no more detail than is needed to give you a reasonably clear idea of why he is so shattered; one chapter describing how he is rescued and then the whole of the rest of the story is devoted to how his colleagues react to his condition, and how they gradually coax him back to something resembling normality. There are some stories which get away with describing injury or torture in more detail without seeming gratuitous, because they genuinely have something important to say about it, or because there is a thriller element to the plot which requires the tension to be ratcheted up. For example there is a grim-but-hopeful story called Ashes of Armageddon by Emily Waters in which a series of torture scenes form a vital part of a complex plot which is about cunning and courage and fortitude, not just unrelieved misery, and are interspersed with interludes of kindness and comradeship. However, some supposed H/C fics, as well as a lot of what are called darkfics, shade over into taking an unlovely relish in the hurt aspect, to the point of becoming "torture-porn". If that's what you want to write, at least be aware that you are doing it; and be aware that chapter after chapter of unrelieved descriptions of torture etc. written for the sake of being dark isn't just depressing - unless exceptionally well-written it's often rather boring, and will only appeal to people who get off on torture. Gradual coaxing back to normality is an important point. You often see stories in which characters suffer what should be a traumatic experience and either get over it almost instantly, or fall apart on the spot. Real people seldom do either of those things; they struggle to cope, but jagged bits of trauma and neurosis keep rising to the surface for months, years, sometimes for life, disrupting their mental balance. It takes time to recover from a major trauma. Even comparatively minor ones, such as not quite getting hit by a car, are likely to leave people rather shaky for a couple of weeks. There is a peculiar sub-genre of H/C stories in which somebody is raped but it is somehow very rapidly OK, often ending up with them falling in love with the rapist. Rape attacks a person's sense of self and their sense of control over their life, so unless the victim has iron self-confidence and a very unusual mindset they will be traumatized and seriously affected, usually for several years - although probably less so if they are in some way in control of the situation, such as deliberately allowing themselves to be used as bait. This will also apply to stories in which the rapist has been in some way forced to commit the rape against their will; the victim will still be traumatized, it's just the focus of blame which shifts. And stories in which the victim falls for a rapist who committed the crime of their own free will are highly psychologically dodgy and suggest Stockholm Syndrome - a type of brainwashing sometimes seen in hostages. Another common idea in H/C stories with a sexual aspect is that somebody is raped, or has suffered childhood sexual abuse, and the person who is comforting them makes love to them and that is, in itself and without other complications, enough to heal them. Establishing a loving sexual relationship with somebody who's been abused is likely to do them a lot of good in the long term, but in the short term getting there is likely to be difficult. Bear in mind that initially many rape victims will freak out when they try to have sex (even if they really want to be able to do it), because being touched scares them and their subconscious thinks they are either going to hurt their partner or be hurt by them, or they associate sex with feeling dirty and powerless, or they feel that in some way their body now belongs to their abuser. Conversely, many people who have suffered long-term sexual abuse have an ingrained feeling that they have no right to refuse sex, and will go along with whatever their partner suggests out of a sort of numb resignation, without being very emotionally engaged - making it difficult for them to connect with the genuine love which their partner may be offering. These things need to be born in mind and worked around if you want to write about sexual healing. For reasons too complex to go into here I have a theory that the reason rape damages people's sense of self so badly is that we are territorial little primates, and rape makes the victim feel that they can hold no territory, not even their own body, and therefore have no place in the group. Certainly the people who cope best with sexual abuse often seem to be those who have no sense of territory anyway (lifelong travellers), or those who have a very strong sense that they do own territory (such as farmers). It may therefore be useful, both in real life and in fanfic, to make sure that a victim of sexual assault knows that they have a place where they belong, that they own their own home etc.. It is certainly always a good idea to try to reinforce their sense of personal power instead of poor-thinging them too much. People who have been sexually assaulted or badly beaten have been made to feel powerless and like non-persons, so they need to be encouraged to assert their individuality and to see themselves as strong and independent.
There exists a whole category of story known as Hurt/Comfort in which somebody is injured or depressed and other people rally round to help them. Usually, the attraction of the Hurt part of the story is that it builds dramatic tension and engages the reader's sympathies very intensely with the person being hurt, making them care about them and want to help them; and then the Comfort part shows them getting that help. Such stories are often a way of breaking down the barriers surrounding a solitary character and enabling them and the people helping them to learn to know each other much better. Not for nothing were the first fannish H/C fics written about Spock: although there exists at least one very good mainstream example from the 1920s - The Wounded Name by D.K. Broster.
Traditionally, the "comfort" part of the story predominates. For example, in the multi-chapter Potterverse story The Price We Pay by Ilmare2 Snape disappears and is presumed dead, but when the war ends he is discovered in a prison cell, traumatized, catatonic and close to death after eight months of torture. The story consists of one chapter describing what was done to him to reduce him to that state, with no more detail than is needed to give you a reasonably clear idea of why he is so shattered; one chapter describing how he is rescued and then the whole of the rest of the story is devoted to how his colleagues react to his condition, and how they gradually coax him back to something resembling normality.
There are some stories which get away with describing injury or torture in more detail without seeming gratuitous, because they genuinely have something important to say about it, or because there is a thriller element to the plot which requires the tension to be ratcheted up. For example there is a grim-but-hopeful story called Ashes of Armageddon by Emily Waters in which a series of torture scenes form a vital part of a complex plot which is about cunning and courage and fortitude, not just unrelieved misery, and are interspersed with interludes of kindness and comradeship.
However, some supposed H/C fics, as well as a lot of what are called darkfics, shade over into taking an unlovely relish in the hurt aspect, to the point of becoming "torture-porn". If that's what you want to write, at least be aware that you are doing it; and be aware that chapter after chapter of unrelieved descriptions of torture etc. written for the sake of being dark isn't just depressing - unless exceptionally well-written it's often rather boring, and will only appeal to people who get off on torture.
Gradual coaxing back to normality is an important point. You often see stories in which characters suffer what should be a traumatic experience and either get over it almost instantly, or fall apart on the spot. Real people seldom do either of those things; they struggle to cope, but jagged bits of trauma and neurosis keep rising to the surface for months, years, sometimes for life, disrupting their mental balance. It takes time to recover from a major trauma. Even comparatively minor ones, such as not quite getting hit by a car, are likely to leave people rather shaky for a couple of weeks.
There is a peculiar sub-genre of H/C stories in which somebody is raped but it is somehow very rapidly OK, often ending up with them falling in love with the rapist. Rape attacks a person's sense of self and their sense of control over their life, so unless the victim has iron self-confidence and a very unusual mindset they will be traumatized and seriously affected, usually for several years - although probably less so if they are in some way in control of the situation, such as deliberately allowing themselves to be used as bait. This will also apply to stories in which the rapist has been in some way forced to commit the rape against their will; the victim will still be traumatized, it's just the focus of blame which shifts. And stories in which the victim falls for a rapist who committed the crime of their own free will are highly psychologically dodgy and suggest Stockholm Syndrome - a type of brainwashing sometimes seen in hostages.
Another common idea in H/C stories with a sexual aspect is that somebody is raped, or has suffered childhood sexual abuse, and the person who is comforting them makes love to them and that is, in itself and without other complications, enough to heal them. Establishing a loving sexual relationship with somebody who's been abused is likely to do them a lot of good in the long term, but in the short term getting there is likely to be difficult. Bear in mind that initially many rape victims will freak out when they try to have sex (even if they really want to be able to do it), because being touched scares them and their subconscious thinks they are either going to hurt their partner or be hurt by them, or they associate sex with feeling dirty and powerless, or they feel that in some way their body now belongs to their abuser. Conversely, many people who have suffered long-term sexual abuse have an ingrained feeling that they have no right to refuse sex, and will go along with whatever their partner suggests out of a sort of numb resignation, without being very emotionally engaged - making it difficult for them to connect with the genuine love which their partner may be offering. These things need to be born in mind and worked around if you want to write about sexual healing.
For reasons too complex to go into here I have a theory that the reason rape damages people's sense of self so badly is that we are territorial little primates, and rape makes the victim feel that they can hold no territory, not even their own body, and therefore have no place in the group. Certainly the people who cope best with sexual abuse often seem to be those who have no sense of territory anyway (lifelong travellers), or those who have a very strong sense that they do own territory (such as farmers). It may therefore be useful, both in real life and in fanfic, to make sure that a victim of sexual assault knows that they have a place where they belong, that they own their own home etc..
It is certainly always a good idea to try to reinforce their sense of personal power instead of poor-thinging them too much. People who have been sexually assaulted or badly beaten have been made to feel powerless and like non-persons, so they need to be encouraged to assert their individuality and to see themselves as strong and independent.
On Onyx Orbs One day, many moons ago, some Potterverse fan-writer decided to describe Snape as having "onyx orbs" - probably by mistake for obsidian. Since that fateful day, generations of fanwriters have slavishly followed suit. Please note: typical onyx is a greenish off-white, usually with grey-green or toffee-coloured swirls in it. Black onyx does exist, but is usually still very streaky - and if it isn't streaky, it's nearly always artificially dyed. The "black onyx" which you see made ups as jewellery often isn't even onyx, dyed or otherwise, but just dyed agate. If you go to Onyx Sphere Corner you will see spheres made in fifty-three colours of natural onyx, only three of which are black and only one of which is a pure dense black. Onyx is not a good stone to use to describe near-black eyes without any pale bits in them. Horace Slughorn has onyx eyes. Snape does not. If you must compare Snape's eyes to a stone, try obsidian (which comes in a range of colours, but black is the commonest) or jet. Better still, don't. "Black eyes" is a perfectly adequate description - "midnight eyes" if you want to be fancy. And try to avoid comparing people's eyes (and lips) to anything edible, particularly if they are also described as "moist" or "glistening." All those descriptions of Hermione's "moist, chocolate-coloured eyes" are either risible or nauseating. Also please note: only house-elves (and cats, and owls, and certain types of lemur) have orbs. Other people just have eyes. Also try to avoid referring to eyes as "optics" unless you are deliberately being funny and 1920s-ish. It's true that's one of the things "optics" means but it more commonly refers to spectacles, or to the study of the eye, rather than the eye itself. If you think that's being harsh, bear in mind that "onyx orbs" and "glistening chocolate eyes" are among the phrases which cause some readers to hit the Back button as soon as they see them, so if you use them there's a risk your fic simply won't get read. At best, it's an indication that the writer is lazy and just repeating what they've read in someone else's story; at worst, it's as bad a sign as opening with an obvious Mary Sue.
One day, many moons ago, some Potterverse fan-writer decided to describe Snape as having "onyx orbs" - probably by mistake for obsidian. Since that fateful day, generations of fanwriters have slavishly followed suit. Please note: typical onyx is a greenish off-white, usually with grey-green or toffee-coloured swirls in it. Black onyx does exist, but is usually still very streaky - and if it isn't streaky, it's nearly always artificially dyed. The "black onyx" which you see made ups as jewellery often isn't even onyx, dyed or otherwise, but just dyed agate. If you go to Onyx Sphere Corner you will see spheres made in fifty-three colours of natural onyx, only three of which are black and only one of which is a pure dense black.
Onyx is not a good stone to use to describe near-black eyes without any pale bits in them. Horace Slughorn has onyx eyes. Snape does not. If you must compare Snape's eyes to a stone, try obsidian (which comes in a range of colours, but black is the commonest) or jet.
Better still, don't. "Black eyes" is a perfectly adequate description - "midnight eyes" if you want to be fancy. And try to avoid comparing people's eyes (and lips) to anything edible, particularly if they are also described as "moist" or "glistening." All those descriptions of Hermione's "moist, chocolate-coloured eyes" are either risible or nauseating.
Also please note: only house-elves (and cats, and owls, and certain types of lemur) have orbs. Other people just have eyes. Also try to avoid referring to eyes as "optics" unless you are deliberately being funny and 1920s-ish. It's true that's one of the things "optics" means but it more commonly refers to spectacles, or to the study of the eye, rather than the eye itself.
If you think that's being harsh, bear in mind that "onyx orbs" and "glistening chocolate eyes" are among the phrases which cause some readers to hit the Back button as soon as they see them, so if you use them there's a risk your fic simply won't get read. At best, it's an indication that the writer is lazy and just repeating what they've read in someone else's story; at worst, it's as bad a sign as opening with an obvious Mary Sue.
On Grammar and Spelling Occasional grammatical oddities or spelling errors need not spoil an otherwise good story. Lots of grammatical oddities or spelling errors will make your story hard work to read, and most people won't bother. And avoid very long paragraphs, a.k.a. The Block Paragraph of Doom: they give readers spots before the eyes, and make it very hard to re-find your place if you lose it. Ditto for centre justification, which is quite dizzying except when used for poetry with fairly short lines.
Occasional grammatical oddities or spelling errors need not spoil an otherwise good story. Lots of grammatical oddities or spelling errors will make your story hard work to read, and most people won't bother. And avoid very long paragraphs, a.k.a. The Block Paragraph of Doom: they give readers spots before the eyes, and make it very hard to re-find your place if you lose it. Ditto for centre justification, which is quite dizzying except when used for poetry with fairly short lines.
An awful lot of people get confused about the use of the apostrophe - the ' mark - and stick it in in the wrong places. This is an error which, if done a lot, can be quite noticeable and off-putting to readers. The apostrophe stands for what's called "ellision" - that is, a place where part of a word has been cut out, such as in "can't", which is short for "cannot", where the ' stands in for the missing letters "no".
In the case of possessive terms such as "the cat's tail" the apostrophe is there because the original, archaic way of saying this was "the cat its tail", and the ' stands for the missing letters "it". The actual word "its", used to to indicate possession (e.g. "the cat lashed its tail"), has no apostrophe, since to insert one would mean it was short for "it its", which would be ridiculous. "It's" takes an apostrophe only when it is short for "it is" or "it has".
Simple plurals which are not possessive ("Look at all those cats") do not have an apostrophe. Plurals which end in s, and which are also possessive, just stick an apostrophe on the end - so one says "the cats' tails", not "the cats's tails", unless one is being deliberately cute. There is some doubt whether singular words or names which naturally end in s should take 's or a plain apostrophe when used possessively; you will find, for example, that whether JK Rowling says "Sirius' face" or "Sirius's face" varies from book to book, according to the whim of her editor.
Many people also get lost over the correct use of who and whom, and whether to use e.g. "Jill and I" or "Jill and me". The trick is to change it to "he" and "him", or "I" and "me", and see which fits.
So, for example, you say "To whom it concerns" because you would say "it concerns him", not "it concerns he". You say "Who is that?" not "Whom is that?" because you would say "He is", not "Him is".
Similarly, if you want to know whether it's "Jill and I" or "Jill and me", take Jill out altogether. We say "I was tired, not "Me was tired", therefore it's "Jill and I were tired", not "Jill and me were tired". We say "He gave it to me", not (except in certain rural dialects) "He gave it to I", hence it's "He gave it to Jill and me", not "He gave it to Jill and I".
Beware of using too many exclamation marks!!! Exclamation marks indicate a rising, excited/excitable or sharp tone of voice. They may be used sparingly in dialogue where you think your character really would be excited or alarmed; but doing this too often will make the character sound like a nut or a Valley Girl. Using them in the narration will make you, the writer, sound self-conscious and arch; so only use them if that's the effect you're aiming for.
Many American writers seem to eschew the use of the hyphen, but omitting it can create a very confusing effect. For example, the phrase "black trousered legs" is completely ambiguous as to whether it refers to black legs, wearing trousers of indeterminate colour, or to legs of indeterminate colour wearing black trousers. "Black-trousered legs" makes it clear it is the trousers which are black, while "black, trousered legs" tells us that the legs are black.
Writers who have difficulty with spelling or grammar, or who are unsure of their writing-skills, need to employ a beta-reader; that is, an experienced writer who will read their story before it is published, and identify errors and suggest improvements to the structure etc., as a professional editor would.
Even the more experienced and confident writers normally use a beta, since everybody makes at least some mistakes - typing errors, and using the same word (other than neutral words like "the" and "but") three times in one sentence, and so on. When you first write (or draw) something, it is very hard to assess it and spot your own errors, because your brain still remembers what it meant to put, and is liable to see what it knows it meant, rather than what it really put. This remains true for days at least, and sometimes months (it once took me six months to notice that I'd drawn somebody with two left hands). A good beta will be able to spot your errors (including continuity errors, such as having somebody drive off in the car which was parked fifty miles away at the end of the previous chapter), and also tell you whether the story "works" for them, whether they think you've explained it clearly enough etc..
However, if you don't like using a beta, or can't find one, I have discovered by accident that it is far, far easier to spot your own errors, and to assess your story as if you were a reader rather than the writer, if you export it to a new format and change the look of the thing. If you're used to seeing your story as a Word document, try putting it into HTML, or pasting it into an e-mail, or printing it on paper and reading it on the bus, and you should find that that largely eliminates the "I know what I meant to put" factor.
On Grown-Up Language If any character who is not a) American and b) less than ten years old says "wanna," "gonna" and "cos" a lot, this a sign that it is probably a Painfully Bad Story.
If any character who is not a) American and b) less than ten years old says "wanna," "gonna" and "cos" a lot, this a sign that it is probably a Painfully Bad Story.
A Note to Aspiring Poets Poetry isn't just pretty phrases and sentiment - or sentimentality - chopped up into short lines. In order to be actual poetry, rather than poetic prose, it needs to have some sort of strong rhythm to it. It doesn't have to be a very regular, organized rhythm - but if you look at where the stresses (the syllables which naturally come out harder, louder or longer) of the words fall they should have a flow to them like music: a kind of music where the sound and rhythm of the words is as important as their meaning. This is especially true when writing in English, which has very strong and unpredictable stresses. When you've written a poem, read it aloud to yourself and pay attention to the stresses, and see if they form a pleasing, musical pattern. If they don't, think how you could change the stresses to form a more pleasing pattern, and then pick slightly different words which will give you that pattern. But don't force it by artificially shortening words which wouldn't normally be shortened. Using "e'er" instead of "ever," for example, or "glist'ning" instead of "glistening," in a poem which is not otherwise written in old-fashioned language, is like hanging up a sign which says "I couldn't find a word that fit here, so I took a word that didn't fit and cut a bit off it." The use of some degree of alliteration (words beginning with the same letter), internal echo (rhymes and other sound-alikes within a line, rather than at the end of it) and rhyme is also often desirable, although not essential. But don't overdo it - too much alliteration just results in a tongue-twister. "Wild wet blustering weather," for example, creates a pleasing effect, whereas "wild wet windy weather" sounds faintly silly. Rhyme and rhythm are good, but an un-rhymed and random poem is preferable to one in which the rhyme and rhythm are too obviously forced. Unless you're going for comic effect, you shouldn't even notice the rhymes unless you look for them. Try to avoid cod-Mediaeval language, especially made up cod-Mediaeval language, unless the poem really is set in the Mediaeval period. I think, for example, of a Potter-verse I came across which had a well-developed, sophisticated rhyme and rhythm scheme, but of which the first line began with "'Twas" and the second line contained the word "didith." Also try to avoid poetic inversion, especially when used to excess. Poetic inversion is saying things like "Bright was the sun" instead of "The sun was bright." It's all right in moderation if you're going for an archaic feel - especially something in the manner of a Viking saga - but too much of it just looks posey and over-strained. I've seen people say that it's not real poetry unless it's written from the heart and expresses deep emotion etc.. I've even seen one person present a piece of plain prose and say "Of course it's a poem, because it's about feelings." This is, not to put too fine a point on it, rubbish. Poetry can be about anything which inspires you enough to write a decent poem. Heart-felt feelings are only one possible subject, and are something of a minefield, because poetry written about deep emotion often just ends up as twenty lines of slop. If you do want to write about emotion, it usually turns out better if you use your feelings to create the poem, rather than using the poem to express your feelings. Ideally a good poem should express an original thought, or an old thought in a fresh and original way, rather than just saying what everyone else has said, in the same way that everyone else has said it.
Poetry isn't just pretty phrases and sentiment - or sentimentality - chopped up into short lines. In order to be actual poetry, rather than poetic prose, it needs to have some sort of strong rhythm to it. It doesn't have to be a very regular, organized rhythm - but if you look at where the stresses (the syllables which naturally come out harder, louder or longer) of the words fall they should have a flow to them like music: a kind of music where the sound and rhythm of the words is as important as their meaning. This is especially true when writing in English, which has very strong and unpredictable stresses.
When you've written a poem, read it aloud to yourself and pay attention to the stresses, and see if they form a pleasing, musical pattern. If they don't, think how you could change the stresses to form a more pleasing pattern, and then pick slightly different words which will give you that pattern. But don't force it by artificially shortening words which wouldn't normally be shortened. Using "e'er" instead of "ever," for example, or "glist'ning" instead of "glistening," in a poem which is not otherwise written in old-fashioned language, is like hanging up a sign which says "I couldn't find a word that fit here, so I took a word that didn't fit and cut a bit off it."
The use of some degree of alliteration (words beginning with the same letter), internal echo (rhymes and other sound-alikes within a line, rather than at the end of it) and rhyme is also often desirable, although not essential. But don't overdo it - too much alliteration just results in a tongue-twister. "Wild wet blustering weather," for example, creates a pleasing effect, whereas "wild wet windy weather" sounds faintly silly.
Rhyme and rhythm are good, but an un-rhymed and random poem is preferable to one in which the rhyme and rhythm are too obviously forced. Unless you're going for comic effect, you shouldn't even notice the rhymes unless you look for them.
Try to avoid cod-Mediaeval language, especially made up cod-Mediaeval language, unless the poem really is set in the Mediaeval period. I think, for example, of a Potter-verse I came across which had a well-developed, sophisticated rhyme and rhythm scheme, but of which the first line began with "'Twas" and the second line contained the word "didith."
Also try to avoid poetic inversion, especially when used to excess. Poetic inversion is saying things like "Bright was the sun" instead of "The sun was bright." It's all right in moderation if you're going for an archaic feel - especially something in the manner of a Viking saga - but too much of it just looks posey and over-strained.
I've seen people say that it's not real poetry unless it's written from the heart and expresses deep emotion etc.. I've even seen one person present a piece of plain prose and say "Of course it's a poem, because it's about feelings." This is, not to put too fine a point on it, rubbish. Poetry can be about anything which inspires you enough to write a decent poem. Heart-felt feelings are only one possible subject, and are something of a minefield, because poetry written about deep emotion often just ends up as twenty lines of slop. If you do want to write about emotion, it usually turns out better if you use your feelings to create the poem, rather than using the poem to express your feelings.
Ideally a good poem should express an original thought, or an old thought in a fresh and original way, rather than just saying what everyone else has said, in the same way that everyone else has said it.
Anyone who wants to develop their poetic skills, and is unsure how to go about it, would be well-advized to get hold of a copy of Frances Stillman's excellent, informative and highly readable book The Poet's Manual and Rhyming Dictionary.
Ms Stillman has this to say in her introduction:
"Poetry is, of course, verse - although not all verse is poetry [...] Verse is composition in words that employs deliberate patterns of sound in its language. These patterns may follow the rules of regular or mixed meter or the loose cadences of free verse. Verse is almost always divided into lines [...] The lines are often organized into stanzas, which are also sometimes loosely called verses. Verse frequently employs the device of rhyme to heighten its effectiveness."
Later on, Ms Stillman cites the example of the poem Grass by Carl Sandburg, to demonstrate the difference between poetry and prose.
Pile the bodies high at Austerlitz and Waterloo, Shovel them under and let me work-- I am the grass; I cover all.
And pile them high at Gettysburg, And pile them high at Ypres and Verdun. Shovel them under and let me work. Two years, ten years, and passengers ask the conductor: What place is this? Where are we now?
I am the grass. Let me work.
Although this is extremely free verse, without any very organized meter and without rhyme, it is full of assonance (words with similar vowel sounds) - "pile" with "high," "shovel" with "under" - and other sorts of internal echoes. Above all, if you take out the line-breaks and present the piece as if it was three paragraphs of prose, viz.:-
Pile the bodies high at Austerlitz and Waterloo, shovel them under and let me work -- I am the grass; I cover all.
And pile them high at Gettysburg and pile them high at Ypres and Verdun. Shovel them under and let me work. Two years, ten years, and passengers ask the conductor: What place is this? Where are we now?
I am the grass. Let me work. -- Carl Sandburg
and then read it out loud, the natural stresses of the language make it quite clear where the line-breaks were and should be. Plain prose, on the other hand, rarely has much of a rhythm to it.
