@ChickenFreak - I like the way you've rephrased "start with action" and I don't know that I'd call you an amateur - an amateur is someone who doesn't know much, maybe not even the basics, and is at the beginning of their journey to learn whatever it is. You're unpublished, but that doesn't make you an amateur. I don't think "amateurs" ever make it to publication - by the time you get your first book published (I'm assuming it's of at least decent quality), you're likely actually rather experienced. It's just not been recognised until you get published, or perhaps you're not at the pro level needed for publication. But whether you're an amateur is surely based upon the amount of experience you have in something, and if you've spent 10 years writing critically (by that I mean with an eye to constantly improve, studying the craft, editing your own work, expanding your horizons etc), then you might not be a professional writer, but you certainly aren't an amateur.

Or maybe I'm just being super duper pedantic? I don't know though - these terms have emotional relevance, I feel, and to an extent the words we use to describe ourselves reflect how we see ourselves and our confidence in our own skills. The words we use, even to describe ourselves, matter. And I'm not sure it's productive to describe yourself as an amateur if you've accumulated a lifetime of experience and insights that are far from amateurish - to me it would seem as though you don't appreciate your own skills lol.

And as for "caring" - you're right that if you want someone to die, technically you "care" about them, but now I think you're taking the word out of its general social context, or whatever this context is called lol. eg. how a word is generally interpreted and the implications people naturally take with the word that goes beyond its dictionary definition. (is this "social" context? What's the term??)

@Steerpike - yeah there was one time, I was reading Lee Child's book and there was this page that made me read and reread it, over and over - it was written so wonderfully. I don't remember the details now but it was a page describing Reacher alone in the night, standing by the water - I think he may have been standing on a bridge by the sea - and he thought of his childhood. I loved it. I read this when I was a student or maybe even earlier, so it's like, a decade ago. I still remember it. It was then I finally realised: if I think Lee Child's writing is a little blah, it's because he chose to write that way. To write tailored to one's own genre, to write with such control - now that takes skill. However, I also felt it was a bit of a shame - he could be producing beautiful work, contemplative work, yet he churns out Jack Reacher books Reacher's entertaining for sure, but y'know...

@123456789 - I guess the problem is taking any advice at all when it is not tampered by one's own extensive experience in the field You just don't know how far to go, what nuances might there be, when to filter. In general terms, I'd probably classify this level of good judgement as wisdom, although wisdom in writing sounds a little... pompous?

That's not what the literary canon is.

I realize that :S My bad.

@Mckk yes, the Reacher books are mostly lean, spare prose. I agree with you that Lee Child could probably put out work that is more beautifully written. You see glimpses of it. However, writing in the style that he chose for the Reacher books looks deceptively simple and isn't. I've come across other authors who try to emulate it and don't do a very good job of it. Elmore Leonard is another writer who could pull it off.

Oh Tom Cruise was such a bad choice for Reacher I mean, c'mon! Reacher's supposed to be a rough, tough, BIG lone wolf. Tom Cruise is none of those things with a pretty boy's face and surely much too short? I did actually watch the Reacher film and I can't say I remember anything of it except that it was bad.

I wonder though, how would you react if an obviously bad choice was cast for your beloved MC but said bad choice was a huge Hollywood celeb like Cruise?

I had no idea Lee Child wrote anything other than Reacher books (by the by, I think his real name is Jim Grant I've always thought he'd got such a stereotypical name for someone boring stuck in his study of old books and wearing a tweed jacket ) I can imagine it might be hard to write something else if you've written one character and one type of story for so many years - and old familiarity is always attractive. Since it makes money to indulge in nostalgic in his case, it does make sense he'd just keep on writing Reacher books.

Makes me think I should go read one now I used to be a huge fan when I was a teenager when I first discovered Lee Child, then fell out of love at uni when I got super critical. Now I'm just like, what the hell, as long as it entertains me, I'm game

Crais is another guy who writes this sort of thing well.

Tom Cruise owns the production company and then cast himself as the MC? Sounds a bit vain... but yes, for a quarter million per book, I wouldn't complain much either. Besides, Cruise draws a certain secure fan base, which can only be good for your book. Even with a bad film, you'd get people who'd be curious about the book afterwards, or those who wanna see how bad the book might be, if the book was this bad etc. Either way, it means broadening your reach of readers.

I don't even remember Killing Floor, but I do know that that was my first ever Reacher book (which also happens to be Lee Child's first Reacher book I believe, a happy coincidence) I was most disappointed to find his other books written in third rather than first person, but still faithfully devoured every single one for the next couple of years!

That's a very good question. Although I appreciate any and all critques on my work here on this forum, most have been based on what is important to the member who responded. And that's okay too but they range from just a couple of things to crossing out whole lines of text on the same writing. Although I realize good editing is important in a grammatical sense, I tend to adhere to most rules only if they don't interfere with the story I am trying to tell.

There's a quote I like. I don't remember who it is from or if I ever knew the source but it read: "Creativity is all about seeing how many rules you can forget."

That being said, it also implies that at some point you had to have known the rules and I think this is where the problem comes in. We learn many rules, some of them basic, some of them higher order, then when we go to write it's a cacophony of editors in our heads, line editing as we go along. One can't write under those conditions. Writing needs space and air to breathe and grow and develop.

So I think it helps to know the rules otherwise you're free-floating without any sense of direction or deeper understanding of the craft or the mechanics of how or why certain things work or don't work. But that being said, you can't be constantly be harassing yourself over if each sentence and clause fits within the confines of a rule set. I think knowledge of rules helps build appreciation for how it all fits together. I'm not arguing rules have no place. A lot of rules have good reasons behind them. For example, starting a story with a dream is frowned upon because of the fact the reader feels cheated because he or she has invested in something that has proven to not have any real tangible affect on the story (unless the story involves dreams having an impact on the story with real stakes like Inception or A Nightmare on Elm Street style). Head-hopping between characters in a story that started out in, let's say, third person close is frowned upon because it makes the story hard to follow for the reader. A certain basic level of writing competence is required otherwise the writing is difficult to follow and not aesthetically pleasing. Pretty much, any true rule should be aimed at making it easier for the reader to lose him or herself in the story. Even that can be played with if your goal is to induce a sense of disorientation in the reader (Eric Basso's The Beak Doctor comes to mind). But it is still aesthetically pleasing.

Maybe it helps to think of the elements of the story as existing on a slider system, like on music mixing boards. If you turn one thing down, like reader orientation, then you must compensate by turning something else up, like aesthetic appeal. Just a thought and a way to think about writing in a different way than as something purely rule based. Or treat it like scientific experimentation or straight up play and mess around with different variables until a result you like is achieved.

This thread reminds me of what Frank Shorter told a reporter after he won the 1972 Olympic Marathon. She asked him what his secret was, and he said, "Well, you don't run 26 miles at under 5 minutes per mile on secrets." Rules do, of course, give us a baseline of what other writers have discovered, but as Andre Gide said, "You cannot discover new lands without leaving the shore for a long time."

A Real Smart Guy named Leonardo (not the turtle, and not the actor!) once said to undertake a sea voyage you need practical experience in sailing, and you also need to know how to read a sextant and, like, other navigating stuff.

Yes, and if I'm reading you correctly, you're saying we might survive a voyage beyond the shore of common experience without some if not all of the rules but not without tools. And I'd like to add the "rule" that if you don't know where you're going, any road (or voyage) will take you there. That's frequently my problem with a story--I start banging on the keys without knowing where I want the story to go...