The 'Rules' of writing.

Believe it or not, Gary, you agree with the article.

This is basically what Charles was saying--that so many writers are told the do's and the do not's as if writing about the weather or writing in either first, second, or third person are the actual problem, rather than being told *why* each of those things might be a problem, and *why* not to or to do each of those things.

Admittedly, it was buried in a load of anecdotal slush, I'll give you that.

 

When I see these rules presented, particularly by people who know what they're talking about, there's usually a reason given. It depends on the source I guess. This is the difference between a cook and a chef: a cook knows how to follow instructions while a chef knows how each ingredient will influence the dishes they make. I suppose the basic instructions might be useful for a cook, but a more skilled writer (a chef) should know to take stuff like this with a grain of salt. I guess pushing the rules real hard can hamper some peoples' development by reinforcing the cook mindset. That's why I recommend to anyone learning anything to dive deep and understand the core concepts behind what they're doing.

 

OH NO, SOMEONE ELSE WITH A CARTOON AVATAR
BEWARE, THE BAYVIEW COMES FOR THEE!

 

You know, it is hard to get there from here. Writing sucks. Writing is like guitar if the only way to practice guitar from day one is to write new songs. "Hey, listen to my new song. Do you think Empire music wants it?" "Nah man, you started guitar last week."

Explaining the rules is one of the only ways writing skill can be transmitted to novices without a mentor.

If you go into a Brazilian Jujitsu class, they will teach you how to break someone's arm. They will say, "when he is on top of you exactly like this, you do these steps in order to break his arm." Then later they will show you another situation, and another situation. It is corny to interrupt the instructor and say, "well that's not the only way to break someone's arm." No shit. You can't break someone's arm any way you try so what do you care if there are other ways?

To take that a step further, there are guys who try to teach Brazilian Jujitsu by talking for half an hour about the principals of arm bars, and then showing 12 different arm bars no one has time to practice. None of their students can do arm bars either. Knowing trivia about a topic and having the skill to do something are very different.

The best way to learn a principal is to learn a whole bunch specific scenarios, and then organically grow your knowledge through play and experimentation.

If a writing instructor says, "here is a way to construct a pleasing sentence," or, "the form of your sentence isn't pleasing, so you should do it like this instead," it might be better to try doing it their way until your taste and skill improve enough to understand their suggestion. Your immediate goal is to write something another human being can finish and give feedback on, and following some rules might get you there faster, at least until you improve enough to understand the reasons for them.

 

I can't disagree with any of that except for the fact that it presumes a novice comes in to their first story with no knowledge or sense whatsoever. Before a person even gets to high school, they've likely learned more about writing than a person on their first day of jujitsu. If you've read books, you've seen the rules broken. Nobody's coming into this thing without being influenced by tons of examples already, and as the article in the OP points out, people frequently espouse ridiculous and even contradictory rules. I don't think anyone would suggest throwing out all the conventions. As has been pointed out several times in the last 5 pages of posts, some rules are good, some rules are wrong and if you understand the rules and have good reason to break them, you should do it.

 

That pretty much is how English is taught in my school. We have a bunch of example sentences that use different literary devices for Year 5 children. I cringe when I see children being told to "improve" their sentences by making it more complex, choosing the most complex verb rather than a simpler one, inserting multiple adjectives into a sentence... But these are all tools the children have only just begun to use. Without these tools, they all end up with sentences like "I went home" or "They had a battle and the king died." So, there is sense in making them use these tools - they just haven't learnt how to use them exactly, or even when to use them for the greatest effect. They are barely aware of the emotional resonance of each word they're choosing. Their aim is simply: start using it.

So it's as you say, they don't understand the reasons for the tools yet, but until they do, they should still try and use them anyway. You gotta start using something badly before you can get good at it.

That's actually another reason why these writing rules are stupid. Haven't you noticed how often rules start with Don't. Don't do this, don't do that. These rules like to tell people what not to do without ever telling them what they should do. But I remember someone once said, how do you know when a bank note is counterfeit? They don't do that by studying the fake notes. They do so by studying the real notes. By the same principle, I believe it is much more important to know what you should do rather than what you should not do.

But all this "Don't do this, don't do that" just paralyses people - it doesn't give a student any room to learn. It doesn't allow them to do anything badly, so how can they ever learn to do it well?

 

I think I've seen the vast majority of these rules advanced on this very site, over the years. I don't think Charles is aiming this article at professional editors (a job she used to hold, as I understand it) but at novice writers and the strange rules that circulate inside writing communities. Yes, the occasional editor may promote some of them (all editors are not created equal), but mostly it's the repetition and reiterations that make them feel so real to some newer writers. (And, yes, most of the times when they're invoked on this site, someone speaks up against them. But they linger...)

I'm confused. At the start you were saying these rules don't exist, and now you're saying some of them do exist, and with good reason.

So... you're acknowledging that some of the rules exist and are promoted?

And, as @animagus_kitty pointed out, this is essentially what Charles is saying. "That doesn’t mean you don’t take advice or accept crit. It means that when you see a “don’t do X!” you ask yourself why, you think of counterexamples, you look at how X works in the sentence and if it is causing problems, and consider whether there is a clearer or more effective way to do it. In fact, write mindfully."

She certainly doesn't say that rules, across the board, don't matter. She quite carefully lists the rules she's objecting to.

 

Truly. An instructor or reviewer might be spouting a "rule", and not have a clue. I recall one person who circled every single case of an adverb (7 total) in a 5000 word chapter, for me, also writing that adverbs were bad. Well, to begin with, not all adverbs are bad, and only 7 in a 5000 word presentation is extremely low. But, I went over all seven and changed one, omitting another, leaving only five. That, to me, was a gain. I had a better piece of work via two changes because I understood the caution associated with adverbs, not the root "rule", that got it all started off. It is absurd to circle every case of another writer's adverbs, but if you are armed by knowing why that rule is used, you can still take advantage. A disarmed writer just drops all the adverbs or rebels against the "rule".

Another example is modifiers in general. I have twice told writers, here, last week, to consider their modifiers more carefully, and suggested some omissions. Now, the "rule" is adverbs, similes, metaphors and adjectives are bad. But the rule is that they ought to be reviewed for possible omission, not point-blank omission. So, to me there's a "rule" and a rule. And there is also a why, which is super important. Modifiers are paint. The house that gets painted is either rotten to the core, in need of some help, or sound as a rock. You can paint a rotten house, and it looks pretty nice to the untrained eye. As well, the paint can become the house (purple and cluttered), which is nasty because our story is a house not a decoration.

Now, I often tell writers who have all these lathered on and non-working modifiers to try writing without them for a while, just to see if they can actually sustain themselves at building a house. The most descriptive writing on the planet has few modifiers because WHAT is described matters considerably more than how it is adorned. And if you can't build a house, but think you're great because of the paint, you have an issue that needs addressed. Conversely, if you build a great house, and paint it, fine, as long as the paint isn't so over the top that nobody even cares that a house is under it.

 

Understanding the 'why' behind the use (or non use) of writing tools is important. What is the effect these things can create?

It's a good idea to consider your modifiers, before than just slapping them on, for example. However, some ARE necessary. You might need to say 'the yellow rose,' for example, rather than just 'the rose,' because most people will not immediately picture a yellow one.

However, modifiers can dilute as well as enhance a word. The more modifiers, the more diluted the effect. The hot, bright, round, golden sun? Or simply 'the sun?' (Which we assume is a hot, bright, golden orb—unless it's blanked out by heavy clouds, or turning red in the sunset?)

Will a more specific word make a stronger impression than a weak word with a modfier?

Dashed or sprinted, for example, rather than 'ran quickly?' However, some adverbs are useful. There is a difference between 'he was digging a hole as I approached,' and 'he was furiously digging a hole as I approached.' There is nothing wrong with using an adverb. It's the effect of its use that you need to pay attention to.

Same goes for nearly all our writing tools. Learn how to work them, and make a decision about applying them as you progress with your story—on a piece-to-piece basis. They all have their uses.

 

I 100% agree with you.

Your example is a prime candidate for tons of suspect writing advice. For every “no adverb” response, you’re also going to get a show/tell “show me the moon on broken bottles” or whatever response. Why do you have to say “furiously”?

Why can’t you say that he strained to shovel the dirt into piles. Faster and faster he heaved like a machine, sending dirt scattering behind him. Loose piles shedding dirt back in the hole as sweat dripped from his face and cling to his muddy arms. Dah dah dah.

Maybe it isn’t worth the words. Maybe “furiously” gives the right mental image for most people. Maybe this is a fast scene and you don’t want to give the reader the impression the POV character has stopped to admire the digger’s work.

 

Excellent point. We are taught, over and over and over again to be efficient. For the most part, we hunt for the perfect word that eliminates inefficiency, cuts to the bone, and shows our concern for accuracy. That is a great way to work, and certainly a concern, but as you say, what about the voice of the narrative? Who controls that voice? Where is it ringing in the head, and what does it say about the viewpoint?

Along comes a reviewer who says, you just need to say furiously. Another person says, oh no, now an adverb. A third person says, forget all that advice because your viewpoint is going to be laboring over the language, just like he's laboring with that shovel, and he has all day to rumble in the head 'bout how much of a bitch it is to shovel out that hole. Without voice, the work is in the deadzone of authorland, to the point where the correct concern about efficiency becomes moot.

 

I don't really feel that eliminating wasted words is about efficiency. I think that it's because a useless word or a flabby sentence is distracting. A major element of the process--finding and killing useless words--may be the same, but the goal and result may be very different.

(I'm not saying that "furiously" is useless here. It looks potentially very useful.)

 

Not only is this good writing advice, its good life advice.

 

But that was the point, right? I don't think that's ironic--I think that's a large part of what the person who assembled the list was saying, and a large part of what the list was supposed to communicate.

 

Good article, thank you very much.

 

Love it!

 

Come and contradict! I find myself disagreeing with much of the critique in the thread, but it doesn't stop me posting an alternative view.

 

I was running out of nice ways to say, "Don't listen to that person. We don't need to know the whole plot yet." Besides, what do I know? Yes, I've read hundreds of books, and almost none of them explained themselves in the first three lines, but it didn't seem like that was in the spirit of the exercise somehow.

 

Threads take on a life of their own but when I started it, the idea was to say if you would read on or not based on the first three sentences alone (which can be as much as a browser would look at before deciding). It's remarkable how much you can tell from that opening.

I tend not to mention other critiques - I know how tempting it is when someone is giving terrible advice - but just give my own thoughts. It's up to the author to decide which critiques to listen to.

 

Sure, and in reality, I wasn't calling anybody out, especially not directly. It just felt like I was missing the point or something. Sounds like maybe I wasn't though. I think I may have made this sound like a bigger deal than it is. I have a tendency to do that. (What am I, a writer? So dramatic, this one.) Like I said, there's a lot of good advice in there. I'm sure I'll check it out again.

 

Nah, I pounced on your post because I also feel there is some terrible advice being given out in that thread. But also great advice, as you say.

 

I think if the purpose of the 'first three sentences/ thread is simply to find out if people would continue to read on, that's excellent. However, when we only GET three sentences to look at, the tendency (on a critique thread) is to start pulling them apart as if they are works of art that stand alone. Which can be annoying.

 

So - you could post replies there, of the sort you wish to see?

 

I'm not sure what you mean.