this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2024
9 points (69.6% liked)

Books

6000 readers
6 users here now

A community for all things related to Books.

Rules

  1. Be Nice. No personal attacks or hate speech.
  2. No spam. All posts should be related to books.

Official Bingo Posts:

Related Communities

Community icon by IconsBox (from freepik.com)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This is a major issue for me as a non-native English speaker (it even happens in my own language, but the effect is not as bad). Why do some authors go out of their way to make their books very convoluted? Like they make it so hard for you to connect the dots from different chapters or even the same chapter. What's the point? Do some readers actually enjoy this? Or is it the author trying to show off/feel superior? (This is not meant as an insult, just an assumption/opinion?). I've read several Stephen King books and they're mostly easy to understand, but sometimes he'd go on tangents where shit doesn't make any sense. I just skip all that "filling", as a I call it. Like who's whom, and what's just happened? Where did this come from? And so on. Tried with the Malazan book of the fallen, and holy shit. The beginning of the first book was a major pain to understand, so I stopped and I've been reading more English books so I can get better then go back to it. On the other hand, my wife has introduced me to this writer, Freida McFadden. The lady has the most straight forward books I've ever read. You read and you understand everything from start to end. I don't even find myself getting distracted like I do with the books that I have a hard time understanding. Her books are very clear and the English she uses is very simple in terms of vocabulary. Vocabulary...... That's another can of worms that I don't want to open.
Thanks for reading my rant.

all 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

The majority of writers in English write books with the expectation that a majority of their readers will be native English speakers. And for the most part, this is true.

The vocabulary of native English bibliophiles is, on average, much wider than the vocabulary of someone who learns it as a second language. This is nothing inherent to speakers of English; almost everyone speaks their own native language better than a foreign language.

Complex plot lines are not unique to English either, but it is more noticeable when you consider the added mental strain of reading in a non-native language. Regardless, there are plenty of authors, as you have found, who will write simpler prose with more linear storytelling. Each writer has their own style. What might be meaningless filler to you could be considered flavourful world building or character building by someone else.

Literature is like food: people tend to prefer food from their culture over foreign foods, and if you don't like certain cooking styles or certain flavours, you can certainly find food that better matches your preferences. And it's also similar to how some people think rice is flavourless and boring while for others, it's an integral part of the meal and it would not feel complete without it.

[–] Infynis@midwest.social 3 points 6 months ago

Also, sometimes Stephen King was off his mind on cocaine

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago (2 children)

So pretentious assholes like me can grumble-brag about how hard it was to read James Joyce's Ulysses. Also so you can tell that somebody's a liar when they say they've read it.

[–] veeesix@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 months ago

Ngl you already had me calling you a liar in the first half.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

you mean like not including any formatting so youre stuck reading a giant, unbroken wall of text?

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 months ago

There are some who are convoluted to be convoluted, and I don't enjoy that.

But there are some who use more advanced vocabulary simply because different words have different meanings and communicate different ideas. Bigger or less common words can allow you to add substance that is more difficult to communicate with shorter, simple ones.

[–] expr@programming.dev 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Stephen King was on a lot of cocaine when writing his most famous books. A lot of them have weird stuff or stuff that isn't all that coherent.

But yeah I mean reading literature in another language really is a whole different experience than just conversing in that language. Many authors bend or break conventional rules for literary effect, and many languages even have dedicated language constructs and idioms for literary writing. I'd even go so far to say that being able to effectively read literature in a language is a step beyond fluency and reflects a deep understanding of the language.

[–] Wxfisch@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

I think it’s twofold, bad writers and attempts to write “deeply”. A lot of authors that right good stories are not good writers, George Lucas is an excellent example of this. He builds good worlds with interesting stories but everyone I’ve talked to agrees that A New Hope (written by him) is just super poorly written. The second one includes writers like George R R Martin who include a ton of setting, descriptions, and expose in an attempt to make their books feel more like literature than modern novels. Occasionally this works but in most cases it seems to raise the difficulty of reading the book without adding to the story. In many ways this is just a different flavor of bad writer, though I think more often these authors do it on purpose compared to those in my first group.

[–] SattaRIP@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I'm an indie author. Idk how common my experience is, but here goes.

I've self published one book, but I want to go back and make a 2nd edition, after I finish book 2. My primary goal in writing was to get anyone to enjoy it. I realized onky after publishing that accessibility is important, and I've adapted my writing style. How I realized was that my relative who have English as their second or third language couldn't understand my writing.

The only people who managed to finish my book were all writers, I believe. In order to get through m book they needed to accept that sometimes my writing didn't make sense to them, so they continued regardless.

[–] BitchPeas@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Some of us need stimulation. A three piece jigsaw puzzle won't do it. Give me the 10,000 piece puzzle.

I rejoice in an author who writes for pleasure and meaning, who asks difficult questions, who doesn't limit themselves, who creates and exploits paradox.

It helps my intellect grow, captures my attention, and leaves delicious remnants to decipher long after completion of the material. The ability to read again with a different perspective is beautiful.

So no, it's not pretentious or confusing. It is just more difficult for some, immensely pleasurable to others.

[–] mittyta@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago

Totally understand you. I think it's made to show off. But also sometimes it's made to make book more interesting like a detective. So a reader who could connect these dots feel superior above others.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee -5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Like The Hobbit, where he takes a paragraph to describe the door on the hobbit's home?

Some of the most over-rated, blathering, pretentious bullshit I've ever read. Someone who feels compelled to create an entire language for his characters is just showing off. Bunch of Emperor's New Clothes ego-stroking trash.

And at this point I've read a few thousand novels, and a few hundred educational tomes (stuff that's great for insomnia) and Tolkien has that beat by a thousand miles.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

It's one sentence of a paragraph my friend.

"It had a perfectly round door like a porthole, painted green, with a shiny yellow brass knob in the exact middle."

Full paragraph describes the entire home:

"It had a perfectly round door like a porthole, painted green, with a shiny yellow brass knob in the exact middle. The door opened on to a tube-shaped hall like a tunnel: a very comfortable tunnel without smoke, with panelled walls, and floors tiled and carpeted, provided with polished chairs, and lots and lots of pegs for hats and coats—the hobbit was fond of visitors. The tunnel wound on and on, going fairly but not quite straight into the side of the hill—The Hill, as all the people for many miles round called it—and many little round doors opened out of it, first on one side and then on another. No going upstairs for the hobbit: bedrooms, bathrooms, cellars, pantries (lots of these), wardrobes (he had whole rooms devoted to clothes), kitchens, dining-rooms, all were on the same floor, and indeed on the same passage. The best rooms were all on the left- hand side (going in), for these were the only ones to have windows, deep-set round windows looking over his garden, and meadows beyond, sloping down to the river."

Tolkien is painting a picture with his words.