I love writing forums—the fellowship with other writers, the feedback and input. However, there often seems to me a impulse to steer writers toward the generic, toward well-worn “rules” of fiction writing. I think that is something to be wary of and that is incumbent upon the writer to follow their own vision for a work no matter what feedback might be received in a forum or from beta readers etc. I do not mean by this that feedback should be disregarded out of hand but only that it must be subservient to the vision of the writer. I’ve mentioned Woolf’s To The Lighthouse in another thread, and there is a passage in which Lily Briscoe is somewhat in conflict with her own painting. Or, perhaps, her painting is in conflict with the expectations of ‘art’ at that time. It seems to me what she expresses in her painting applies to any creative endeavor: ‘But it was with difficulty that she took her eyes off her picture. The jacmanna was bright violet; the wall staring white. She would not have considered it honest to tamper with the bright violet and the staring white, since she saw them like that, fashionable though it was, since Mr Paunceforte's visit, to see everything pale, elegant, semitransparent. Then beneath the colour there was the shape. She could see it all so clearly, so commandingly, when she looked: it was when she took her brush in hand that the whole thing changed. It was in that moment's flight between the picture and her canvas that the demons set on her who often brought her to the verge of tears and made this passage from conception to work as dreadful as any down a dark passage for a child. Such she often felt herself—struggling against terrific odds to maintain her courage; to say: "But this is what I see; this is what I see," and so to clasp some miserable remnant of her vision to her breast, which a thousand forces did their best to pluck from her.’ When it comes to writing, certainly take feedback into consideration. If it is instructive, learn from it. But in the end you see what you see. Don’t let anyone change that.
I agree, but it's still important to steer inexperienced writers toward the principles. As generic as they are, they must be understood. And once fully absorbed and understood, they become tools in the writer's kit, as Wreybies used to say. If someone has a good voice but not a good understanding of POV for instance, as they delve in and start to learn about it, it temporarily tips the whole apple cart. It's what I refer to as the training wheels period, when we're working too consciously, with the tongue sticking out the corner of the mouth. But when we've grasped it at an intuitive level we no longer need to consciously process it all anymore, it comes out gracefully and effortlessly and the training wheels can come off. Then you can glide smoothly, with that knowledge you were missing before. I once heard an art teacher explain the process like this. Your mind is like a bookshelf, and you're intimately familiar with all the books on it. You know exactly where each one is and can grab it in a heartbeat. But when you add some new books (new knowledge) it messes everything up for a while. Some of the new books go in between the old ones, and you no longer even know where all the old ones are anymore. But with enough time and study, it once again becomes familiar and you can locate each book effortlessly again. At that point the generic 'rules' have been absorbed into your mind and can guide you, while you're working from your own vision.
I'm not familiar with the work you quoted Steerpike, but it makes me think of early level art and how one of the first steps to being a good artist is training your eyes to see what is and not to interpret what you see. Like how kids' paintings are all bright yellow suns with solid blue skies and trees with bold brown trunks and bright green leaves. That isn't how the world is, but it's how we think the world is, which then translates to how we draw it. Only through training your brain to see without prejudice can you elevate your artistic talent. Now maybe you decide for your works, you like highly saturated colors, but you'll be a better artist if you first learn the rules so you know how to best break them. Same applies for writing. That's why it is important for new writers to learn the rules and to listen to feedback. But it isn't enough to just copy what is told to you, you need to learn why there are these rules or know why your beta reader is giving you that feedback. Only through a deeper understanding of the craft can you get better (though study is obviously only one way to improve and means nothing if you don't practice). And part of the reason generic advice is a go to on forums is that it can be hard to judge how well a writer gets it through just a small sample of their work or worse a premise or synopsis.
I agree with the sentiment, especially when it comes to certain genre expectations. Follow the trend... How about setting one instead? That said I think confidence in artistic vision, enough to see it through in the first place, cannot be stifled by teachers or conformism zeitgeist. In most cases, the artist either did accomplish something or was never going to in the first place. There's that hunger, you know? The passion that leads to a pupil first following but later challenging his teachers, a drive to learn everything then tear it down and build it back up again. Without that he wasn't going to create anything particularly amazing in the first place.
I agree, generally speaking, with the idea of learning what the so-called 'rules' are (I do not believe they are truly rules, of course). It is important with new writers to make sure they understand the 'rules' are not prescriptive. They are tools to be used if and when the writer makes an informed choice about whether she wants to use them or not. I've seen the work of young writers worsened by uncritically adopting recommendations from critique groups that push the writing in a more generic direction.
I think you're right, but I also think if they're committed enough these mistakes will be short-term. As long as a person keeps on learning and writing, whatever wrong turns they take will be blips that disappear as they keep developing. Even if they take bad advice, they'll outgrow it. With a little time you can tell what's helping and what isn't.
Back in the day I made a couple attempts playing with rock bands. I played with a lot of people along the way. When we were practicing covers, it wasn't uncommon for a musician to refuse to play the music as closely as possible to the performance because "art" and we needed to inject our own personalities into the music. This never happened with any of the musicians I would consider great, or even very good. It became obvious to me these folks either weren't good enough to play what we were trying to copy, or more likely they didn't want to put the work in to learn it. As has been stated, you need to know the rules before you can break them. I'm not saying it's impossible for a savant to produce outstanding work without the benefit of learning the rules, but that's too small a percentage to factor into the equation. Learning the rules will help the writer whether they ultimately follow the rules or not.
There are two parts to writing: what we want to say, and crafting it proficiently. Crafting it benefits from instruction and feedback. And a lot of practice. As a writer, we entertain thoughts about how our writing will be received. But we have to lay the down the words honestly, in accordance with our vision. We have to be true to what we want to say.
To The Lighthouse still rests on a shelf beside my bed, abandoned after a few pages because it was painful to read. Publishers really need to take font size into account. Even with reading glasses, the edition caused immediate eye strain. I think I'll return to it after the recommendation from @Steerpike, though you might pm your location so I know where to send the optician's bill. There's a lot said about learning the rules and getting a grounding in method and craft. I fully agree but would suggest that each of us can and will learn in different ways. For me, pouring through youtube or instructional manuals holds little chance of improving what I can do, whatever that is. When I find myself doing that, really it's just procrastination. Anyway, if it was that easy, I'd be a master plumber by now, instead of that time being very wet while on the phone to a master plumber. Learning can also be done experientially, by writing. Ultimately, that's what's going to make a difference in any case. Write. Have it read. Get feedback. Go again. Recognise there are trends and fashions and what was vogue 100 years ago is different to 50 years ago, now and 50 years from now. Guidance on "the craft" is subject to change over time. Of the many elements to creative writing - such as plot, character, setting, worldbuilding, use of language - the current emphasis on moving the plot on, to my mind, is a recent development heavily influenced by TV, movies and their stunted cousins on social media. That's the world in which we live? Maybe. But imagine the possibility of fuel shortages and electrical outages. People may want something different from their books should that come to pass, without the clutter and clamour of electronic media. The trend might change. If you're aiming for a mass market, by all means strip it down and remove anything that could be controversial or challenging. I've mentioned it elsewhere but the thought has occurred to me more than once that I've already read this new story I've just come across. This comes from applying formula, include all the elements, make it work type of instruction that writers undergo. The more impressive work is that which pulls the rug, surprises and disorients and presents something new or bold or, even slightly, different. That can't be taught, but can be more finely tuned if adherence to the rules hasn't suffocated it. What makes good writing? Fuck knows (and don't call me fuck nose). There's sorcery and alchemy and all kinds of weird transubstantiation involved in creating good writing. You might learn about voice and POV and story progression through watching videos and reading instructional material. They might get you started or inhibit the hell out of you, but none of them can help you accurately quarter the eye of newt or measure the wolfsbane that goes into the brew. Personally, I don't describe myself as a writer and only discuss it with my wife, and then only occasionally. Not sure when or if I'll ever feel like a writer. What I want is to write what I want how I want AND to have that received somewhere that considers it worthy of publication. There's a tension there that requires compromise and I have control over just one element, which may still not be enough. Feedback on WF is very useful, though there's an understandable reserve involved, particularly regarding negative critique. It's curious that the pieces of which I am most proud are probably least likely to be accepted, but give it time and who knows, right? Good writing? Get your measures right, your eye of newt, strand of wolfsbane, stir over flame for the required period with your eyes clenched shut and, if lucky, your frogs may magically become toads.
