Yes, I was starting to wonder about that myself.

I'd say 'rules' for SPAG should be followed (for clarity) unless there is a good reason to break them (then go ahead.) The other 'rules' about things like passive voice, 'said,' 'show vs tell' are really just tricks of the trade. It's smart to learn what these tricks can do and what effect they have on your writing, but they aren't 'must follow or else' rules. They are—as @ChickenFreak pointed out—choices.

I don't know much about 'rules', per say, but I do think that whatever a writer does, it should be done intentionally. Breaking 'rules' should be a choice to get to one end or the other. I'd say its important to know 'rules' so that they can be adjusted to suit a writer's purpose.

And I don't even think the word 'rule' fits in writing. I'd call it 'technique', and with that said there are all sorts of techniques that writers can benefit from. When it gets down to it, writing is creation--editing your writing is destruction. There sure as heck isn't a right way to create, to write, but people throughout the ages have found all sorts of good ways to edit and destroy. It can't be a bad idea to at least learn some of those techniques, right?

I say this because I'm reading Dwight Swain's Techniques of the Selling Writer and its freakin' amazing.

Great topic everyone. I tend to lean in the direction of what @jannert says above.
What makes a bestseller is the creativity and imagination of the writer. I am leaving work right now, so I will explain more later.

And saved to my bookmarks bar...

Thank you for writing this. I'm new to all writing forums. Mostly because writing seriously has only just become something that I have learned I can seriously do without having to worry about an outcome. What I mean is, everything we do is for a specific purpose. We get up in the morning because we have work, school, or other tasks that require our attention. To do something for fun, even something completely amazing, can have consequences. Is this just me who thinks this? *laughing face emoji here*

Writing is something that should be done because you enjoy it. You should enjoy the character development, setting the scene, and plot twists because you made it. To add on to what you said, it is more than just "the secret", this is the answer: to writing and life. There is no formula to follow or steps you have to take to achieve an outcome or perfection, as much as I wish there were. Life would be boring otherwise. This is why we are writers. Everyone writes for a purpose. To me, the secret is finding out that purpose. This is hard. For writing, my purpose began as "Writing a book that everyone will read, love, and will sell tons of copies".

Of course, during that time, I barely wrote anything down.

Now, I feel like I'm writing because I have a story to tell. Not my own, but a story of a bunch of people who don't exists in this world. I would like to believe that this life that I am creating, or retelling, is meant to be told for a purpose. Maybe its to affect you (me as the writer), or affect somebody else's life (you as the reader ), but this is not up to us to decide.

I say thank you because this is something I often forget. When I search for answers this is what brings everything back together. It's also what is going to get me to write non-stop all night.

*I have half-a-mind to delete all this and be on my way. Reluctantly, I click the post button uncertain what may come of this uncharacteristical action. What will happen? The world may never know*

Has anyone else noticed that it seems to be the "worst" and "best" writers who disregard the rules, and the ones in the middle who follow them most rigidly? I'm generalising of course, and this is anecdotal so I may be wrong.

It seems to me that "bad" writers hate them because they can't follow them, or are so delusional about their writing that they think it transcends SPAG and other rules.
"Great" writers disregard them because they don't need them. The rules are ingrained, the writer knows when to use them, and it's just not an issue.
"Middling" writers want to get better and cling to the rules as a way of doing that, often becoming evangelical in the process, because they want to believe there is a straightforward method for becoming a great writer. Others in this group are unsure about the rules but aren't confident enough in their ability to ignore them.

Maybe related to the Dunning-Kruger effect. Or maybe in my imagination.

I had never thought about that, but I think you may be absolutely right. I just thought about all those cheap Hollywood movies, TV-Shows, and mediocre books that seem to be pumped out just to make a quick profit, and I think this is where you find a lot of the writers in the middle, as you say, who follow the rules religiously. Almost every time you get one of those films or books, you hear the same complaints: that it's "formulaic", and "stale." It's those stories that, when your friends ask you what you thought about it, all you can do is make a weird face and say: "Fine...."

Hi,

To my mind "the rules" (ignoring SPAG since you need to be able to spell and construct a sentence) are a disaster for young writers. And books telling you how to write are equally bad. If you're determined to read these books, wait until you've at least finished your first few books.

Young writers need to write (and read of course). It is as simple as that. And when they write the only thing they should be concentrating on is writing the story they want to write and telling it in the way they want to tell it. Trying to conform their writing to some book of rules, especially at such a crucial stage in their development, is a horrible mistake.

Ultimately new writers, like other more experienced writers to a lesser extent, need to be finding their voice. Yes I know, the term means so many things to so many people. But call it their style for want of a better term. What they don't want is someone else's style as spelled out in such and such a book.

It's only after they've written sufficiently that they should consider the so-called rules - or be introduced to them. And even then, the way to do it is not through books. It's through feedback, critiques and beta reading and editing. And the one thing that needs to be emphasised over and over again - and I don't think this is done nearly enough in most cases - is that all the people commenting, critiquing, editing etc, are only giving opinions. They may be good opinions in some cases. They may be bad. But they are not and should never be thought of, as rules. What a begining author needs most badly at this stage is the confidence to say - "This is my book, and this is the way I want to write it". They need to have the strength to defend their voice. To accept criticism, to weigh it and measure it against what they want to say, but never simply substitute it for their own voice.

Too many times I come across threads where people start talking about how you need to cut down on passive voice, delete purple prose, strip verbage etc etc, and it annoys me. Because you don't need to do any of those things. Doing them may improve your work. They may ruin it. But it has to be up to the writer to know where and when to accept or reject any advice. In the end only the writer can truly know what the book was that he or she wanted to write and how they wanted to write it.

Books on writing are things that should probably only be read by more advanced writers. By those who are confident in their work, and who know what they want to write. Because they are the ones who will be able to read such books and say to themselves "that's interesting, I'll think about it". Less experienced writers are more likely to simply throw out their own judgement in favour of an "expert's" judgement and end up writing something that isn't even their book.

"I'm not saying that young writers who follow this approach will write better books. Or that they'll write worse books. But what I can guarantee is that those who follow this approach will write their own books. And to my mind that's the most important thing. After all why would anyone be proud of writing a book in a way that is basically a carbon copy of someone else's writing style?

Cheers, Greg.

It's not so much rules, but good or bad technique.

Maybe "effective or ineffective technique"? Because I think some techniques are very effective for some readers, not at all effective for other readers... and there tends to be a bit of a hierarchical pressure leading to those techniques which tend to be effective for, say, English professor readers, to be labelled "good", even though they wouldn't be at all effective for another set of readers.

Whatever's relevant to your project.

It's not only that, one's taste in literature, it's also that writing styles change from generation to generation.
All those books English professors love to dissect until all you want is a pillow and curl up for a nap, wouldn't even find a publisher if they were written today.
And oh how I hate the Russian Classics!

You forget that novel-writing is an evolving craft. We learn because of past experiments.
It's a kind of patricide to dismiss this fact.

The rules work. Why would you not want to write in a way that works? Unless something work better. But it doesn't seem like people are in favor of doing what works as much as they want to break the rules. It's kind of silly.

Can you give an example of the rules you're talking about? I think people in this thread are using different definitions.

I think it's a misunderstanding of evolution to think that we're getting better, as if we're moving toward some future perfection.

Do you really think the modern style is independently better than a more classical style, or just better suited to short attention spans and an electronic age?

Which rules are you talking about?

ETA: Oops. Cross-posted.

I was trying to figure out what everyone else meant by the rules, but no one wanted to answer me. But I guess I don't really have a problem with any so-called rules. They always work unless something works better. It's not about learning the rules so you can break them. Learning the rules will help a writer grow and their work improve.

I'm guessing we're talking about things like not head hopping, avoid info dumps and purple prose, show don't tell, avoid cliches, always you said for dialog tags, etc. See, if people are so set on breaking rules and are flat out against them, I would think they would have a certain rule they disagree with, but that's not what I'm getting from people here.

I'd disagree with pretty much all of those examples if they're presented as absolutes. If they're presented as "be aware of what you're doing when you head hop, give an info dump, etc." I could get behind them, mostly. But as absolutes, I think they're really... stupid? Simplistic, maybe. There's a time and a place for everything.

But they work. Sometimes something works better, and you break the rule. Rules work until something works better. If you've got something that works better, go for it. But the only absolutes I'm seeing are that people seem to absolutely hate the idea of rules regardless of what they are.

"Always use 'said' for dialogue tags" is presented as an absolute. But if you didn't mean it that way, I'd totally agree to "'said' is generally the most unobtrusive way to attribute dialogue, where an attribution is necessary."

Always using said can work for a writer. They can do a lot worse than sticking with said. The rule is there to help you. But the way I've always viewed the rules is that they work until something works better. I guess I can't stress that enough. There are no absolutes. The rules are there to work with us not against us, and unless and until something works better.

So I think we're back to the rules/guidelines/suggestion definitions, right?

I think when a lot of people hear "rules" they think absolute and binding. You seem to be thinking of them more as guidelines or suggestions?

I won't speak for anyone but myself, but one of the things I was trying to get across with this post is that you shouldn't follow a set of rules for the sake of following them when you write your stories, you should write and figure out what works on your own by writing independently and reading other people's works. Could that be a longer, more time-consuming process than just following a rulebook? Yes. But I would wager that following that rulebook, though it may be faster, will result in a far less creative and unique piece of writing. If you choose to write in a certain way, it should only be because you feel that that's the best way to do it, regardless if 90% of the writing community have for years believed that doing it a different way is better. If you restrict yourself to "follow the rules until something works better," then your creative mind will never be looking for something that works better in the first place, because you're already on the path of the rulebook. Whereas if you free yourself from the rules and instead spend as much time as you need to figure out what works on your own by experimenting and getting feedback, then the end result will probably be something far more unique and interesting right?

Right. I'm not trying to disagree with anyone. Sure, there are times when the a so-called rule isn't the best option. I just don't know why anyone would need to be wary of the rules. They are what works the majority of the time. I'm not talking about or thinking about them as absolutes. But I will always use said unless and until something works better. I will probably never include an info dump if I can help it. Head hopping and purple prose can mess with clarity. Clarity is my no. 1 pursuit with my writing. I think there is a lot of wiggle room in show vs. tell and an active voice vs. passive voice. Once you've got those down, it's really about balance.

Man, I feel like such an old fart defending the rules. It's just that these dreaded rules gave me a pretty solid foundation as a writer. I love experimental works and I would never call out someone for not following a rule if what they are doing works. But it can be much harder to break the rules correctly and in a way that works than following the rules. Not in absolutes but in theory, the rules do work.

Some of those are subjective, of course - info dump and purple prose are both largely in the eye of the beholder.

And passive voice is a great example of a grammatical term that didn't really have any value judgement attached to it that was then borrowed by people trying to make rules (I assume), twisted and butchered and reformed as something that I think is now understood by most people to be something different than what the term actually means (meant? - at what point do we give up?)

I include my passive voice rant as an introduction to the idea that a poorly understood "rule" is a dangerous thing, and a properly understood "rule" is almost certainly understood as.... okay, yes, I didn't trust it because the rhyme made it seem too glib, but, fine... as a tool. Tools, not rules. I'm on the bandwagon.