Ann Leckie on "rules"

Then we're in agreement @ChickenFreak . I think the simultaneous part is where things go sideways in the discussion, because it's not implicitly said. But it's certainly implied in what Ann Leckie says. In fact, that's the main thing I took from it: don't wait. Practice now so you have longer to get better at breaking the rules.

 

Or maybe "learn basic concepts eventually"? Like, you probably won't stop sucking until you're at least aware of the concepts and how to manipulate them, but you don't have to sit and study theory books forever before you can start writing.

Start writing, think about your writing, think about other people's writing, try stuff, see if it works, try other stuff, see if it works, go back and try the old stuff that didn't work then and see if it works now, etc. etc. etc.

 

I like to focus on what I call 'tricks of the trade' rather than 'rules.' Rules implies things you must do, or things you should never do. Tricks of the trade, however, are things you can learn to do, in order to create certain effects or results. I love learning them.

 

I've been writing since I was a wee lad, never had any formal training. Had a basic idea of the so-called rules, then just wrote however the fuck I please.

Rules are for society not your writing. Aside from basic grammar and making sure your audience can read it, have a blast, right you're fucking story without the hindrance of somebody else's rules.

Writing is the one place where I or any of you have control over the the rules.

I said this before, but I'm really glad I never had any formal training or the slightest idea what the rules are supposed to be. If I happen to follow them out of them being natural, that's fine. If not, oh well

My book, my style, my rules.

Edit: reading the thread, I'm liking the concept of the be more like guidelines or tools and tips to consider, as opposed to rules oh, and as we know rules are meant to be broken.

 

Yeah tell that to faleena Hopkins, only reason she's in hot water is because the trademark stuff.

Edit: I think my point here is, if you write a story that people enjoy I don't think grammar or the cold hard structure of writing matters at all Felina was doing just fine before the trademark ordeal, and from the few Snippets I have seen I've learned it doesn't matter. If if fans enjoy it the more power.

 

These "rules" are actually tools designed to help writers write an effective story. It's no different than the "rules" behind just about any endeavor.

Some gifted individuals don't need the tools. They can "get away with it." Other people clearly need the tools. If your writing isn't appealing to others, looking at those oft repeated phrases might help give you a clue.

 

I remember this guy who once visited a boxing gym looking to spar. He insisted on boxing his own way. "That guy has his own distinct style. He fights chaotically." He fell down every fifteen seconds.

Writing is a dangerous endeavor because you don't have a coach like you do in almost anything else. So I would say we really need to pay attention to whatever advice is out there. The exception is "do whatever you want," which to me is the one extremely dangerous piece of advice to listen to.

 

Great point.

 

Rules can be tools, I suppose, if they keep you thinking about what you're doing as you write, especially if they focus on effect. But some rules can be couched as exact requirements. Maybe a certain publishing company won't accept stories that don't have happy endings. That is their rule, and they expect their authors to follow it. Writers shouldn't write prologues because most readers won't read prologues. You shouldn't write too much narrative because it bogs down the story. Use lots of dialogue because it keeps people turning pages. Pick strong nouns and verbs and ditch adjectives and adverbs. Writers' rules are often made by people in a teaching or publishing field who like or dislike certain things in stories—or have seen lots of efforts that went bad. But that doesn't mean these rules are universal rights and wrongs.

A writer's tool, on the other hand, is something that helps the writer to do something. Example: Foreshadowing is a tool, which can not only build suspense but also focus the reader's attention on what is likely to go wrong. This can be helpful in certain stories, but it can also give the game away if it's too blatant, so learn to use it well.

If you learn what tools can do, and then become proficient with them, you can make just about anything happen. I think that's better than following somebody else's prescription for what does or doesn't work. Almost any result can be achieved, if you learn the tricks of the trade.

That's vastly different from "Just write what you want," by the way.

By making something 'work,' I mean creating a piece of writing that says (to the reader) exactly what you wanted it to say. Or creates the exact swirl of emotions in the reader that you wanted them to experience as they read your story. Or makes one character's personality believable, or makes the reader dislike another character. Tools help you bridge the gap between the writer and the reader. Rules don't do quite the same thing.

 

It occurs to me that some of these "rules" may well have started out as a way to free writers from other rules.

Filter words, for example. Some writers may not know that you don't have to have a character listen and hear things with their ears--you can instead just report the sound. That doesn't mean that it's never OK to "listen" or to "hear", but it means it's not mandatory.

Some writers believe that they're not allowed to use "said"--that they are required to Tom Swifty all their dialogue tags.

Some writers believe that every bit of dialogue is required to have an adverb, because the reader can't possibly deduce tone or intent from context.

So many of these rules might productively be translated from "Never do X" to "You don't have to do X"

 

For example, I often tend to over complicate things. This is a pretty common problem and I think it's much easier to spot in other people's work than your own. "Keep it simple, stupid" blurs the line between prescription for what works and a tool.

It's a tool because it can help simplify things that are too complicated, thus making it more easily digestible to others, but it's also a prescription because, when I'm looking at my own work, it can be hard to see that it is overwritten. To some extent, I have to trust in "KISS," because I know the kind of feedback I'm likely to get if I don't.

In essence, I think tools are most effective when the user is humble enough to realize he needs them.

 

Are there rules of fiction writing? Of course, there are. I think there are. Maybe. There could be.

Stories should make sense. Thy should be comprehensible. Their words, how the are used, and why, are the 'rules" that should be followed. There is experimentation, and also clarity, to consider. There are stories that cal for the breaking of "rules," sometimes this is the only way for these stories to make sense. .

Rules? I suppose there are, if you think their should be. Right?

 

Similarly to the "break one rule at a time" thought, I believe the best way to be the best is first to master the art of the best artists, whether that's writing, music, painting or even making movies. Then, you can push that into something new. That's largely what great composers did, from my own experience of listening, and I'm still learning about great writing, but it looks exactly the same. You cannot create something original (and valuable) if you don't understand what already exists. And that requires understanding how it works, which requires knowing the 'rules'. But they are not really rules, only guidelines. Art is fundamentally without rules. If it had rules, it would never change, and we'd still be making art the same as Bach or Chekhov, or Leonardo, or whoever perfected the 'rules'.

One 'rule' that often annoys me is 'show, not tell'. It's good to know this as a guideline, but ONLY if you understand it. But in contradiction to this advice, I have read from masters of writing and from critics and in books on writing that you can sometimes tell and not show perfectly well, and it is even advisable to use a mixture. Some things are best in 'summary', some are best in detail and with 'feeling'. Context and function are crucial when deciding.

As a personal preference, and as a horror lover, I would advise against advice from the likes of Stephen King, for a number of reasons. Everyone has a different way of doing things, and a good idea for one writer may not be the same as another. And, of course, such people are only in it for the money.

Best 'rule' as a writer. READ.

 

Except when you are breaking them, such as the obvious non-grammar in speech, or if you are James Joyce and creating new words, and so on. Creative writing is not communicating a message, it's communicating a feeling or a concept.

 

I agree with you, but I would change that last bit to: ...learn what the tools in your toolbox are for and use the best one for the given job.

I see it like this: If scientists propose a theory to explain the universe as we observe it and engage it, and then spend all their time trying to find explanations for why the theory doesn't cover or explain a whole slew of observable phenomena, then scientists typically assume that either the theory is wrong, or at least incomplete, because observations aren't matching what the theory predicts. And that's what actually happens! Scientists are still trying to find the theory that explains what they observe because they admit that yes, there's a whole lot of time spent talking about and trying to deal with observations that don't fit the prediction.

When we stamp down the idea that everything stems from a theory known as "the rules of writing", but then pretty much EVERY successful, beloved, fascinating, intriguing novel we each clutch to our respective bosom is basically defined by the ways in which the writer "broke all the rules" then maybe the prevailing theory about "the rules" is wrong because observation is clearly not matching up with what "the rules" tell us to predict.

So... screw that word. It's clearly the wrong place to start. No one has to follow me down this path. I'm perfectly fine to walk it alone. I have no need to knit my brow and agonize over why/how Soandso McWriterperson "got away with" "breaking rules" and on to fabulous success.

My theory explains it perfectly. Soandso McWriterperson broke no rules and got away with nothing, because those words don't describe what's actually happening, no matter how invested we are in them. Soandso McWriterperson understood the purpose and function of the tools in her toolbox, used the most appropriate tools for the particular result she wanted to achieve, the end result of which was success.

Tada.

 

They're not equivalent. Hearing some music does not enable you to analyse what is heard with precision. Reading does.
I'm certain you could be a literary master by nothing more than reading and ordinary living.

 

I'm not convinced. It seems passive can be used when appropriate, but I haven't fully understood what it even means yet.

 

What part are you not convinced by? Chicken's overall argument, or the idea that passive voice can sometimes be a useful tool?

 

Aha, I didn't quite get what he meant. But still, I don't think it's a clear rule or definition.

 

Passive voice is very clearly defined. Many people don't realize what it means, and mistakenly think that "passive" in "passive voice" is an adjective that refers to weak or watery expression--that it means essentially the same as "passive writing", whatever that means. Those people are incorrect. Passive voice refers to a very clear grammatical concept, just as clear as, say, "first person" or "past tense".

 

I see. I suppose my own confusion here is that I've been given confusing ideas about it.

 

This is a decent page on the subject:

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/539/

 

I'm with you here.

Someone once defined the difference between an apprentice, a journeyman, and a master in the following way. (The reference was to the sort of crafts and skills that guilds were supposed to monitor, but it applies to the writer's craft as well.)

"An apprentice is someone who produces inferior work, because he does not know the rules. A journeyman produces satisfactory work, because he knows and follows the rules. A master produces excellent work, because he knows which rules to break and which to follow."

I don't think anybody can break rules successfully until he or she knows them in the first place. For example, a sentence usually consists of a noun and a verb. That's the rule. The rule can be broken for effect, but a total disregard for the rule usually results in an incomprehensible word salad consisting of fragments that the poor reader must paste together (and the poor reader usually has enough to do in the first place).

 

I'd take the 'rules' a step further. "Why are you doing X?"

That can be both positive and negative. Why do you choose to do X? Why do you choose NOT to do X? And the more specific you get, the more you'll understand what you're doing.

Just saying "I won't ever use passive voice because it's BAAAAD," isn't the same thing as saying, "I won't use passive voice in this particular sentence because active voice puts the emphasis on my character doing something, rather than on what is being done. That's the effect I'm going for here."