This week’s video explains how interrupting, apologizing, and preaching are three gaffes writers can’t afford to make.
Video Transcription: Fiction is a tremendously powerful medium for sharing viewpoints and changing mindsets. Authors should never be afraid of writing about the subjects and causes in which they are passionately interested. But we also need to realize that nothing turns an audience off faster than the Three Mortal Sins: Interrupting, Apologizing, and Preaching. Often we’ll find all three of these sins walking hand in hand, and if we can stamp out one of them, we can often kill all three.
In a classic novel—which shall remain unnamed—we find an excellent example of how the Three Mortal Sins can bring your story to a screeching halt. Halfway through this book, about prosaic country life in 19th-century Derbyshire, the author commits the first of her sins by interrupting her story with a chapter that first makes an apology and defense of a character she fears her readers will find “little better than a pagan,” then uses the opportunity to preach her views at the readers for a further ten pages.
Whether individual readers agree with the author’s points or not is irrelevant, because very few will appreciate having their story interrupted by a sermon. The best—and, arguably, only—way to share moral, political, or social views with your readers is to allow your story to carry them organically. The moment you decide to interrupt your story to insert information that doesn’t directly move the plot forward is a moment in which you’re going to be trying your readers’ patience. Not only are they unlikely to be receptive to hearing your opinions, they’re also going to take some serious convincing to keep reading.
Tell me your opinion: Have you ever been guilty of one of these mortal sins?
Related Posts: Who Says Readers Don't Care?
Should Stories Be Soapboxes?
Info Dumps Don't Belong in Dialogue
Story by K.M. Weiland
I don't know. I mean, I realize modern readers have little patience for interruptions, but is that something we should cater to? I was recently re-reading Les Miserables and found that, contrary to my first experience, I actually very much enjoyed the author's tangents and observations, and what most people would call preaching but which simply seemed to me a representation of the beliefs of his time. The book was so much richer when I could appreciate those things.
Nowadays writers are told to stick to action, action, action. I find it wearisome. Perhaps I am anomaly, but I think that this impatience and poor attention span that is being encouraged in readers is a bad thing.
This makes me think of "The Picture of Dorian Gray." I love the story, and it has such a powerful message on its own--but it is constantly interrupted by Lord Henry's tangents, which I can only assume are Oscar Wilde's way of inserting his views on society. It would have been so much stronger without that, though. I found it all very distracting from the deep meaning of the story itself.
I'll admit that when I wrote my first draft of my novel, Finding Angel, I had a few parts that crossed the line into preachy. At least for me. They did have to do with the story's central conflict, but I figured if I as the author could pinpoint the beginnings and endings of particular sections that might stick out to a reader, then they needed to go. And so they did :).
Granted, my "line" may not be as far out as others'. I tend to like things very subtle. But when you feel passionate about something, it can be hard to tell where story ends and lecture begins. That is where a good set of discerning beta readers comes in very handy!
I agree with Sarah McCabe. While interruption, apology, and preaching are frowned upon, they can be used in effective and inventive ways. A few years ago, I read a wonderful novel called The Family Tree by Carole Cadwalladr, which, IIRC, interrupts the main narrative several times with asides and background information. Far from distracting, this technique made the book delightful, conversational and unpredictable.
As with everything else in writing, rules can be broken if you know why you're breaking them and what effect you want to have on the reader.
@Sarah: It's not "action" that needs to be stuck to, so much as "showing." Every book is unique and offers unique opportunities and unique demands for its author. Some stories will allow tangents in ways others won't. But the author has to be clever - and he can't be self-indulgent. Readers aren't interested in an author's sermons unless they're pertinent to the story.
@Kat: Subtlety in fiction wields untold power. If an author can offer his message in a less-than-obvious way, he'll usually (although certainly not always) surface with a stronger story and a stronger message.
@Greg: As with everything in art, there's always an exception. I've seen interruptions done well (Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell comes to mind), but it's a rarity when that happens. Like it or not, authors have to realize that modern readers just don't have the same amount of patience as readers of days gone by. What classic authors got away with on an everyday basis can only be gotten with by the cleverest of modern authors.
Yes! This can be so frustrating! I just finished reading 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' (*cough* last night at 1 o'clock *cough*) and the thing that bugged me from start to finish was the Interrupting and Preaching. I'm sure it had something to do with the style of the author's times, but tit frustrated me immensely - if Stowe had cut out the poetic, flowery soliloquies on the slaves' plight and the depravity of their masters, I would have been far more affected. To me, her lectures proved counterproductive - instead of persuading me more of their misery, it jolted me out of an otherwise-emotional story and removed any empathy towards the characters I was harboring, replacing it with annoyance at the author.
*sigh* But I digress. Excellent post, as always, Mrs. Weiland.
-w
What you explained about your reaction to Uncle Tom's Cabin is an excellent example of how over-explaining (or, in this case, over-preaching) can weaken even a strong story. Uncle Tom's Cabin is also a good example of how readers' mindsets change. This book was widely accepted among its contemporaries and hailed as a powerful story (although it had those who dissented against its preachiness, even then). But it remains on our shelves today by dint of its classic status more than its writing style.
Great advice Katie! Especially since I was wondering about what makes a book preachy lately. Christian fiction gets a lot of flack for this. And I just wonder.....when readers say it's preachy. What do they mean? I think you hit the nail on the head here.
This is something I've really paid attention to in my own reading, so I'll know what to avoid when writing, and what I've discovered is preachiness is only preachy when it doesn't flow organically from the story. Many of the world's favorites stories are stories with huge moral messages, but they work because the themes flow naturally from the characters, their experiences, and their reactions to those experiences.
Well, action is showing, pretty much. I don't mean action in the action movie sense, but in the "people doing things" sense. And I don't agree that you need to stick to showing. I think that "show don't tell" is a dreadful myth permeating modern literature that need to be taken out back and shot before every corner of our culture is irrevocably infected. It ends up amounting to the dumbing down of storytelling for the sake of the lowest common denominator in your audience. But that's probably a rant for my own blog. ;)
There's always a middle ground, and, as a lover of the old classics, I'm certainly not the one to reject a book based on heavy narrative. But I have to disagree about "showing" equaling the "dumbing down of storytelling." A book that is able to present its story to the reader in such a way that it doesn't *need* to tell is a story that works on a primal, visceral, almost subconscious level - and is all the *more* powerful because of it. Send me a link if you ever post that rant on your blog; I'd love to read it!
Unless the interruption yields a moment of hilarity, I agree with you that the 3 mortal sins bring the story to a screeching halt for me. I hate to be pulled out of a story I'm invested in.
Humor covers a multitude of sins. If your interruption is amusing, it's almost always forgivable.
Everything is wrong sometime. We are living in the age of short attention span so interruption, apologizing and preaching may slow the story down. However I bet there will come a time when... by the way has anybody seen the latest Harry Potter film? Now there's a film that needs some interruptions and apologies to explain what's going on if you haven't seen the other films. Sorry where was I? Oh, yes... one day somebody will write a great novel with a lot of interruptions in (not sure about preaching). Maybe the interruptions will be a clever part of the plot. Then suddenly it will be in fashion. Ten years ago historical novels were not being bought by publishers at all; now there are hundreds. What goes around comes around.
The only rule in writing fiction is that rules are made to be broken - this "rule" included. In point of fact, *all* fiction contains interruptions. Every time the author inserts backstory, explanation, or even just a quick note about how the character happens to be feeling at any given moment - that's an interruption. The trick to do it so deftly that readers never realize you're interrupting the story. The moment they notice what you're doing is the moment when you risk watching their attention waver.
There are some parts of older novels that are preachy--Merlin's talk about Jane in That Hidious Strength, for example, but it works okay because it's by a character who's old-fashioned even by the story's standards...
Exactly. When the preachiness is in character it works. The problem only arises when the author tries to force the issue or insert his own views, apart from the characters.
Wow...that would just be strange for me to do. Unless, perhaps, the narrator is the one apologizing for a certain viewpoint or for a comedic/dramatic emphasis.
But no, generally speaking, I never interrupt. I let the characters tell the story. Thankfully... :)
I'd find that irritating too, but if done seamlessly and organically as you mentioned, it can be a different thing altogether. Great vlog post!
@Veronika: Blatant authorial interruptions are more obvious in distant 3rd-person or omniscient narratives, but they can crop up in less obvious ways even in tight 3rd- or 1st-person. If the POV character suddenly stops in the middle of the plot and goes off on mental tangents, it can often be an indicator that the author is quietly interrupting.
@Lydia: "Organic" is the key word. An author can pull off just about anything and break just about any rule, so long as the result is organic to his story.
Tolstoy and Dostoevsky have a lot of preaching and interruptions, it was acceptable back then, but now literature has changed. Partially, because of this, people tend to like Chekhov more, he shows. Although, to be fair to Dostoevsky he preaches through his characters, while Tolstoy often does it through narrator - an unforgivable thing! I agree with you the way interruptions need to propell fiction forward and are therefore a dangerous tool for special use, or just to dump your opinion on readers. But masters did get away with that. Take Steinbeck for instance. Maybe such books need a sub-genre tag - philosophical. They do get Nobel Prizes though.
I hope I'm not guilty of preaching or apologizing. As a writer, I try to keep it out of my fiction and nonfiction. We all have messages, but nobody needs to be pounded over the head with them.
@Grisha: If you're a master, the rules don't apply to you. It's that simple. :p The only rule that counts in fiction is "break the rules - but do it brilliantly."
@Theresa: Couldn't have said it better. Our messages are more likely to be effective *without* the preaching anyway.
I'm sure I've been guilty of it in the past... and actually have a couple scenes I recently wrote (in the last couple weeks) where I may be guilty of it, but it comes up in an organic conversation, so I think I'd be less guilty than some. :)
It's definitely something to keep a handle on. But, you do have to remember that sometimes it *does* come up not just in narrative but conversation, too. I have a distinct memory of reading a Kathy Reichs novel (not sure which one) and the MC and her sort-of boyfriend were having a discussion in an airport, and in it, they were bashing the Bush administration for something related to the story. I'm pretty sure the character actually used Bush's name, which really kind of torqued me off, since I really didn't think it needed to be stated--plus it seriously dated the material.
Writers have a right to push their own views in their fiction. But what they have to realize is that readers have a right to throw their books across the room when they disagree with those views!
Completely agreed. Unless you're writing a manifesto, subtlety is a must. As they say: "A little subtlety goes a long way!"
I think that the best fiction writers are masters of ambivalence, and it's a sign of genius to be able to have your feet firmly in both worlds of a controversial something-or-other, your true thoughts tactfully shrouded but still traceable in a discerning enough light.
Good advice! Thanks for sharing.
Novels are about asking questions, not about providing answers. But the beauty of it all is that if you can get readers to ask the right questions, that's usually the first step toward their finding the right answers.
Your very answer above is what motivated me to have two old friends in post Katrina New Orleans, with two very different worldviews, shove their differences aside to help the hurting. I never said which worldview, if either, were correct. I left that for the reader to decide - while trying to tell them the most exciting story I could in the process. Great post as always, Roland
Love it. That's the way to write powerful, paradigm-shifting fiction. Present the facts (as you see them) and allow readers the freedom to draw their own conclusions - whatever those conclusions may be.
In the very first manuscript I ever wrote, I did all three. Boy, talk about purple!! But I found some wonderful mentors and now I'm pretty good about not doing them. Good post!
It's always a good sign when we make all the worst mistakes in our first novels - and then learn enough later on to be able to recognize that we made them.
"And I don't agree that you need to stick to showing. I think that "show don't tell" is a dreadful myth permeating modern literature that need to be taken out back and shot before every corner of our culture is irrevocably infected."
'Fraid I'm with Sarah, here, although I completely understand your point and agree they can be accomplished organically. The "rules" are trendy moreso than solid prerequisites for good writing. As you said, they must be broken brilliantly but even when they're adhered to religiously they don't guarantee a good story.
You're absolutely right: rules don't equal a good story. But the author owes it to the reader to observe certain guidelines of politeness. Just as we wouldn't stop a random stranger on the street and start shouting our viewpoints in his face, whether he asked for it or not, we also shouldn't bludgeon readers with those viewpoints when they don't contribute to the story they've agreed to read.
I think the disagreement here, Katie, isn't that this technique can't be accomplished effectively--it's that it often isn't. Yet some readers will appreciate the unique means of telling the story whereas others will feel like the random stranger getting assaulted. I've found that those I call "the average readers" will tolerate any methodology if they like the story. Writers are the harshest critics and spot weaknesses in technique and story before any readers will. Sophisticated readers often approve of risk-takers, but it's hugely subjective.
Yes, definitely subjective - as is pretty much every aspect of art - and I fully respect the opinions of those who enjoy techniques outside the pale the pale of "standard" storytelling, particularly since I'm usually one of them!
From a fan's standpoint, Robert Heinlein's novel, Starship Troopers, is a fantastic example of preaching a point of view done well.
I loved the book as a young adult reader, but it was only as an adult that I got into the political and social views which Robert Heinlein was preaching to his audience. His politics support the story and the fictional world he created for the story.
Heinlen was good at creating a worldview that segued so seamlessly into his story that it can't be separated from it. That's why it works so well. We would all do well to take a page or two from some of his books!
Nice post.
I like the way you start and then conclude your thoughts. Thanks for this nice information. I really appreciate your work, keep it up.
regards
video sermons