TENSE SITUATION #1: THE PAST PERFECT
I usually refrain from blogging about grammatical issues here on Mysterious Matters, as I find that very few of the manuscripts and queries I see have grammatical issues. Even the best of writers can slip on subject/verb agreement or spelling occasionally; this is what copy editors are for.
Interestingly, the level of grammatical awareness seems to have gone up in the last decade or so. I used to get poorly written manuscripts and queries all the time. (At one house I worked at, we kept them in a special binder, carefully preserved in plastic coating, to enjoy time and again.)
But today I'm making an exception to my "no grammar discussion" rule (or, at least, tradition) to emphasize the fact that mystery writers must know how to use the past perfect tense. I won't bore you with English handbook-type explanations, but in a nutshell: past perfect is used to explain what happened before the past tense.
Why is the past perfect tense so important in mysteries? The vast majority of them are written in past tense (and if I had my way, they'd all be written in past tense, as I simply can't stand present-tense narratives), and past perfect is required to keep immediate past and more distant past distinct. I have seen a few manuscripts lately where the authors did not have a handle on the past perfect, which caused me to scratch my head (not in a good way) as I struggled to figure out the time sequence. I separated the strands with difficulty; and all of this could have been avoided if the writers had known the proper use of past perfect.
TENSE SITUATION #2: STEPHEN KING
Those who read Mysterious Matters quasi-regularly know that I try to keep matters positive, as there certainly is enough contentiousness and unpleasantness on the Web. I do sometimes make critical comments, but usually only about authors who are exceedingly well established and who do not need Agatho's stamp of approval. Thus if I read an excecrable book by a well-established writer I may note it on here, but if I read something by a new or emerging writer that is quite bad, I keep my opinion to myself. Perhaps this comes as a result of understanding how difficult it is to find really good new voices in mystery fiction, as well as knowing that all tastes are subjective.
So today I'm going to follow my tradition of occasionally criticizing best-sellers by saying the following: Stephen King, please shut up. King has annoyed me quite intensely twice in the last six months. First, with his fawning endorsement of The Story of Edgar Sawtelle, which I know some people loved but which I found sheer torture to read. Now he's done something even worse, bad-mouthing Stephenie Meyer (author of the Twilight series) in a public forum, calling her a "bad writer." (I believe the exact quote was, "She can't write worth a damn.") What possesses you to speak so hatefully of another writer, Mr. King? I won't speculate here, but you showed a distinct lack of class with your comment.
Why is it that practitioners in other artistic endeavors tend to support one another (When was the last time you heard a Hollywood star bad-mouth another actor?) but writers engage in this sort of nasty commentary regularly? People who have achieved the pinnacle of success as writers should show a certain noblesse oblige, a karmic thank-you for doing something that is a combination of skill, luck, market savvy, and timing. I take as my model in this area the always lovely Mary Higgins Clark, who never has anything but a smile and a kind word for anyone she meets. Mary--if you're reading this, would you kindly email Mr. King and give him a crash course in graciousness?
There's not much difference (some, but not much) between criticizing a book, as you criticize Sawtelle, and criticizing a writer. In fact, if one is criticizing the writer's overall work (which is what King did) rather than the writer as a person, there is next to no difference at all.
I'm just sayin'.
AGATHO RESPONDS: I must disagree. There is a big difference between criticizing a particular work (as I did with Sawtelle) and damning a person's inherent abilities. The former, I think, focuses on a specific "product" while the latter is an ad hominem argument. Note that I did not say that David Wrobleski is a "terrible writer"; I said that I vastly disliked his book, which is quite a different thing. In fact, I think he has the ability to be quite a good writer, but Sawtelle was far too self-indulgent and needed a massive edit. As far as Ms. Meyer goes, I am sure that many of her fans would not consider her to be a terrible writer (nor would I).
Posted by: Jolie | February 16, 2009 at 09:34 AM
I agree completely about hating first person narratives. I can't read Cornwell anymore because of it (among other issues, but never mind that!)
And I also agree that King's comments re: Meyers were gratuitously nasty. I was surprised at his statement.
Posted by: Donna | February 16, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Erm, Donna, that was present tense narratives, not first person narratives.
I hate present tense, as well as second person narratives.
Posted by: Pepper Smith | February 17, 2009 at 03:43 PM
Actually, it's worth reading his complete comments on her. He has some positive things to say as well as negative - it's just the way the media likes to spin things as "controversies" to get attention.
The other thing is differentiating between "she doesn't write worth a damn [today]" and "she'll never write worth a damn", which are very different statements.
Posted by: Twill | February 18, 2009 at 01:47 PM