If you don't understand why each rule or guideline exists, and what the effects (including drawbacks) breaking that rule/guideline will have, don't violate them. The time to be a rebel is when you do so with a purpose other than a hatred of structure. However, formulaic writing will not serve you, except perhaps Harlequin romances, where the formula is mandatory. Picasso didn't start out painting distorted portraits. He added the distortions after he learned to paint realistically. Every distortion had a purpose.
I agree. I myself don't really set out to "break" rules. I just don't really set out to follow them either. The rules are used only in as much as they serve what I want to accomplish.
That's about the sum of it. Know why you are breaking a rule. There are exceptions, like Hubert Selby, but generally it's best to learn to walk before you dance.
I agree with this, for the most part. One should master the basics and know the rules before breaking them. But I don't believe that breaking the so-called "rules" makes one a rebel. And rebelling doesn't mean one hates structure; it may mean one is just tired of the same old structure again and again. I think one of the things that bothers me about the three-act structure, etc., is that it feels like a big restriction on creativity. Shakespeare usually wrote his plays in five acts. I have no idea how Homer structured his poems, but it probably wasn't three acts. Some of my favorite novels, like Steinbeck's East of Eden, do not fit a three-act structure. Works like that made me want to write in the first place. I want open ground. I want to try to build something beautiful even if it doesn't resemble your basic two-story suburban house with a white picket fence out front.
Truly my friend spending money on information that is free is a fools endeavor... Now beg google and Wikipedia for forgiveness.... I'm joking, one can never have to many tools at their disposal... Except Bob the builder..He doesn't need that tool belt... His tools do all the work for him anyways.
There is a difference between a "rule" and a "formula". For example: point of view in fiction writing is a rule. If you have passages that look like this: If that is what's in your story, with POV moving from one to another with no rhyme or reason, you have a major issue. At the same time, if you have a story that takes chapter after chapter to start and ends with several perfect resolutions to the character's problems, you also have a problem. That is the sort of thing that most good writing books can help you out with. People seem to think writing is this "creative juices and unicorns and lilacs" thing, but it isn't. It is all about work work and after that: MORE WORK. If the writing is too predictable than obviously yet another re-write is needed and things need to be changed around with more plot twists added (but no "tricking the reader") I've read those throw away short stories made by writing professors in free literary magazines at the nearby university, and my intestines have yet to forgive me. They are all about "art" and not "popular fiction." That is the truth that the sooner a writer embraces, the better: you are not writing a symphony, because all the symphonies have been written already. The classics are the classics and we don't need anymore. Popular fiction is just that, POPULAR. The best bet is to write something good but that doesn't strive to be Beethoven, but instead manages to be Gangnam Style. A good writing guide book, like the ones by Jack Bickham, can help to do that.
Yeah, that I agree with. I was in a critique group ones with a guy who, when asked if he had an outline actually said "that would be too much work". As opposed to wring a F**** novel, which isn't a lot of work at all.
Such a small-minded opinion. Sorry, there really is no other way to say it. We don't need anymore classics? Why not? Why not strive for something greater than the lowest common denominator?
I never said anything about unicorns and lilacs. I'm pretty hard-headed when it comes to creative work. I understand that it is WORK. But I also understand that you can't fix a tired old plot structure by simply adding plot twists. That's like trying to fix an overcooked, dried-out Thanksgiving turkey by adding chocolate sprinkles on top. This might be the single most depressing paragraph I've ever read here on this forum. I most certainly AM writing a symphony - they have NOT all been written already. Why would you even make that assertion? We definitely DO need more classics - new classics. Every generation needs the literature that speaks to it and for it. That's why ambitious writers keep writing. Serious writers DO strive to be Beethoven, or to surpass him - that's what keeps artists going. I respect artists who aim as high as they can, who take Beethoven, Shakespeare, and Tolstoy as their models and targets. They might not hit the mark, but at least they're not resigned to serving up the literary equivalent of Big Macs. (Sorry for mixing metaphors - my metaphor blender is set to puree right now.) I don't want to make the next Gangnam Style. That's this month's hit and it will be forgotten before you know it. If that's all Jack Bickham's books are good for, then they're just full of Big Mac recipes and I'm not interested. I'm not trying to write a bestseller. I don't want to be Stephen King or Tom Clancy or John Grisham. I think they'll be out of print ten years after their deaths, regardless of how popular they are today. I'd rather be John Steinbeck or Rudyard Kipling or Joseph Conrad, who were successful in their days, but are still in print now and are still very highly regarded. And they wrote damn well and never heard of Jack Bickham. (Apologies to Jack Bickham. I've never read his books; I just got carried away and starting using his name to try to make a point.)
When I first started writing I indulged myself in how to books. Most of them weren't any helpful, and it was not worth reading an entire book for only an incremental amount of knowledge. However there are two books that have helped me more on my writing than any other books out there: Stephen King On Writing - This book helped me not with writing itself, but as a writer. The first half of it is a biography but it's sort of like reading a literature novel, except that instead of learning about values of life you learn about values as a writer. Sol Stein On Writing - This actually helped me with writing itself. I've learned more in single chapters than I have in other writing books combined.
I'm guessing that Stephen King will be very relevant 100 years from now. But that's just a theory. As for what book to invest in - I did love Stephen King's book On Writing. But most of what he had to say that was relevant came straight from Strunk and White. So get yourself a good style guide (Strunk and White, Bird by Bird). It's incredible how much the advice in a good style guide will help with writing well.
I like The Making of a Story by Alice LaPlante. Each chapter is about a different aspect of writing, and it has writing exercises, questions to ask yourself, and short stories & excerpts.
I have a how to book called the idiots guide to writing a novel and i have found it helpful with my writing over the years.
Some are some aren't. Good ones are few and far between, so the best is buying if you know what you need and you researched the options. But the good how-to books on writing are totally worth the money, and extremely helpful especially to the novice writer. The thing is, all the god ones don't contradict each other at all, but they should be dealing with different aspects, as to cover characterisation, scene and structure, advice on dialogue and editing. I have several and I found them very helpful. But what's also helpful in equal measure (if not more) is reading masters of your genre, and learning how they dealt with different aspects of storytelling. That is indispensable. How-to books basically help you identify helpful tips you can find in any well written book.
The movies and books you described are examples of 3 act structure done badly. When done well it works beautifully. Don't diss the whole fundamentals of writing because of crappy stories who employ it also. I can't think of any story that I like that doesn't follow the traditional structure, no matter how quirkily they try to disguise it. Take Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. The only thing he did was mix up his scenes. If you dig deeper than the surface and actually arrange the scenes chronologically, you get a perfectly traditionally structured narrative. ps. I forgot to add, 4 and 5 act structure is just an extension, it is not a significant departure from the traditional 3 acts at all.
To an extent I can see where one can be bored of the structure easily. I recently watched Wreck-It-Ralph and it was a great movie, highly polished with a neat premise. However halfway through you start to realize it's the same as just about every single animated big budget movie out there. I loved it, but I felt yearning for something more original.
I agree with most of what you said except for this. Classics are nothing more than bestsellers of the past. To us they may seem heavy or prudish or oblique, but that's how people spoke and thought in those times. Mozart is Lady Gaga of his time. He was just as ridiculed and popular and people who only cared for church music thought he was a cheap attention seeker. Today, he is considered a genius. I'm not saying Lady Gaga will enjoy such fame but who knows?
Well said! As for the self-help books, I haven't found them useful. I'm sure that somebody somewhere has found things of value in them, but not me. When a book tells you that, in order to be financially successful, you have to do a market survey and find out what's selling, and write as close to that norm as you can, it may be good advice, but I doubt if it would do me much good. I'd rather write for myself. On the other hand, some of them give a good overview of the publishing and book-selling business, which is useful to be acquainted with. Even if you're going to be paddling in largely uncharted waters, you should know how a canoe works, and what you can expect of it.
There are plenty of uses for self-help books. Among them are: 1. Killing spiders 2. Burning for warmth on those cold winter nights 3. Ballast 4. Propping up that table leg that's a bit too short Etc.
I have several 'how to write' poetry books and for the best part I find them useful. I've never found the advice contradictory more that it was explained in different ways. As for ' How to Fiction' I'm not sure. I read many WD discussions and it surprises me how much writers disagree. When I write fiction I 'just write' and tell the story. I don't tend to overthink the process I just enjoy the journey. For example: if I want tips on the best way to write dialogue, I search via google.
I enjoy how to writing books and I've never really found them to kill any kind of creativity. Most of the time, reading them, I actually get motivated to write. If I'm reading about certain techniques a writer has used to improve dialogue or plot or structure, it motivates me to get at it and try and see if it's something that works for me. Some books have had advice I never would have thought of on my own, but have now worked into my writing process because they really help. I know a lot of books seem preachy and restrictive, but most of the writing guidelines that are in most books are there because they work. Knowing how and why these rules work means greater freedom in how best to break them. Good books on writing are worth a lot to me just because of how much they've helped me as a writer. Bad books on writing... They're another story. And yes, I prefer parer books. Why? because they work when the power is out.
The best books are worth their weight in gold. We tend to underestimate how much we learn from free/non-book sources (forums, youtube etc). You didn't know anything when you started this, everything you know now is a result of an information source. Books are just one medium. Here are some great resources: http://www.wordplayer.com/ https://www.youtube.com/user/clickokDOTcoDOTuk/videos http://www.reddit.com/r/writing/ Brandon Sanderson on youtube https://www.masterclass.com/classes/aaron-sorkin-teaches-screenwriting
The usefulness of any particular book probably depends on the reader's current position on the writing career/skill pathway. I've had the same question about casual learning through courses at the local college. Turns out they're all good, but not necessarily good for me, at this moment. For example, this month, I'm reading Steven Pressfield's guides. I just finished War of Art, and am currently reading Do The Work. These books are about artistic productivity, rather than details about writing structure or style. I feel this is appropriate for me right now. I'm at an early stage in the career path where I will benefit more from just producing as much as possible, so I can develop my voice and have a good block of material for peers to critique. Later on, I expect to need guides and courses and workshops that are more about narrower elements of writing craft itself, and then probably some that are more about entrepreneurship, as novel writing is evolving into the equivalent of a startup. I was thinking that it may help to categorize the resources a bit?
