starting off with the weather

Now maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I don't think he said there weren't any rules. I think he's essentially annoyed with the so-called rules that people spout off like little bobble-head dolls and then expect everyone to just "get" what they're talking about. Which, if you're not one? Great. Kudos. You came across like one though, and you still are when you tell someone to go find a discussion that's not too shallow for them. Really? Wow. Pull the claws back in a little will ya? He was trying to make a point (reflecting his POV) which is okay here I think, cause we're listening to yours, aren't we? Don't get me wrong, Pops most certainly doesn't need me defending him here, I'm sure he'll do that on his own (and let me know if I'm wrong about what he meant, lol)but I just don't think he said that.

Furthermore he's right, in my opinion, which I stated earlier. Show don't tell. Heh. Have you seen what people do to their books after getting that advice and not being told what it means? No ly words. Sometimes you CAN use them you know. New writers get these little nuggets of wisdom and shred their MS into an unrecognizable waste of space on their computer. You said yourself they should be able to figure out that if the story is about a tsunami the weather is relevant and that's the point really. Far too many of them DON'T. They take it as gospel, like it's written in stone and that's a problem. Too many people are spouting too many rules with too little explanation. There needs to be a voice of reason.

 

So true, so true.

 

But, are these 'best practices' aligned with the common adages. Is 'show, don't tell' leading a writer to find the 'best practices,' because I can point to myriad examples of bad showing. I can even provide a ton of stories that are certainly high quality and we can assume got that way by using 'best practices' that are full of telling. So, you have a so-called rule that doesn't hold up under scrutiny as a 'best practice' and at best you can simply point to some good fiction and say 'that's showing' (though you can also point to bad showing, good telling, etc).

If you're going to discuss and dive into the craft of fiction, why would something that only works part of the time and that only leads to quality work some of the time even enter into the discussion.

Except that time and time again these 'rules' aren't basic writing rules, aren't taught in any teaching programs or writing classes I've been a part of (then again, I have the luxury of a pretty advanced writing program, even for undergrad).

And these adages are widely accepted not because they're tried and true, but because they're easy and accessible. They usually remind me more of advertising slogans more than anything, designed to catch your attention and be easy to agree with, but if you think about it you realize you aren't actually having burgers your way by going to Burger King, because it's just a slogan.

The notion of learning the rules before you break them is also something so passe that I don't know a single accomplished writer or teacher that believes that (sure, people say it, but it's just a saying). Instead, they find better rules that don't need to be broken, like 'always be interesting.' Hey, there's a rule that works, but aspiring/student writers often hate it because it's not telling them exactly what to do, as if there's some easy paint by numbers method of creating fiction.

edit: I'll add that a few writers I know hilariously point out you need to learn what other people think are rules, particularly potential students, so you at least know what you'll have to counter (and hopefully without rolling your eyes), but not a one brags about how they finally mastered 'show, don't tell' so then felt comfortable breaking it. Nope, they're professionals, if something even needs to be broken, then it's not rule worth having, or not a rule that's helping them in attaining their goal.

Just to be clear, I never intended anyone to think there weren't rules. Just that the commonly tossed around rules are usually a crock of ****.

 

Just like you mistook a static yet essential scene description opening as 'starting with irrelevance', you're confusing guidelines with rules.


Nobody has mentioned anything about rules. Apart from grammar, there are no rules just guidelines. And your argument essentially boils down to this. It's not the principles that matter, it's the execution. Which is absolutely correct. But writing by it's very nature has no definitive formula. There are no set instructions to follow. One could go to almost every thread in the writing issues section and bandy about statements like these, but while yes it's true, you're argument is counterproductive to this discussion.

The discussion is about whether it's a good idea to start with the weather. There are a number of reasons that could turn this into a bad idea, and many people have stated them. To simply discredit the 'guidelines' people are trying to validate, based on your 'everything can be done in the hands of a good writer argument' fails to address the core issue of this thread. It's too easy to hide behind statements like this.


And Maia'a example actually makes a point I was aiming for earlier:

Here the weather is not static. It is the pivotal point in the scene. We come into the book, the moment the weather changes, thus the line 'The sky turned a sickly yellow-green and all sound ceased' makes a good hook. It opens a story question instantly. Why did it suddenly go silent?

Again not static. And the reason this is an effective opening line is the underlined part, not the weather. Why is somebody running?

.

See the difference between my example and Maia's. My example is the static way that most flawed openings start, not Maia's, and that's what should be avoided 'in most circumstances.'

 

I don't want to read three long paragraphs about the weather, but it can be really effective if you slip it in naturally rather than having it as the sole focus. I.e. : "Matt fished frantically for his phone as the clouds rumbled ahead. He ran through the sheets of pouring rain, dodging puddles as he prayed his wife would pick up."

 

These are the opening lines from what some regard as the greatest novel of the last century:

- Robert Musil, The Man Without Qualities

He actually continues in that fashion for another couple of sentences. Make of it what you will.

 

Now I'm just wondering, because in one of my stories. I started with the weather then move slowly down to the destruction, and in a barely stable building, lighten strike to reveal an unconscious person.
Will this be alright, or am I not making sense ?

 

^I'd say you'll be fine. In fact I think it will be rather gripping. Just set the scene up and it'll be great!

I start with weather, heck I start a lot of scenes with a line about the moon or something. Why? Because it's the only thing that links all the characters, the time of day. Plus they all notice it, so why not write it, you know? My advice, go for it. If you don't try you'll never know if it's good. Right?

 

What POV is the story written in? Who (what?) is your POV character if you're planning on writing in a limited third person?

It sounds to me more like the opening for a script of CSI. Great for TV, perhaps a bit distant and lacking for a fiction piece. Using this sort of wide lens was more popular in days past, and the contemporary marketplace, regardless of genre, seems to be moving to a style that starts firmly in the main character's head and stays there, and never zooms out into a quasi-omni pov, and not starting with the traditional narrator funnel (where you start wide, zoom into the MC, and then stick to the MC).

And no offense to anyone, but one of the earliest lessens I learned (from a quite successful mentor) was to not feel validated by peers. If one wants to be a successful writer, one has to hold their work for comparison to the best writers out there (not other novices). If one wants to break into a fiction market, one has to break out of the group-think that occurs and stagnates within many writing groups, workshops, classes or forums. So, just because your peers are doing something, certainly doesn't mean one also should, or that one should feel validated in their decisions.

 

Regardless of whether weather (p.s. lol) "works" for the story, agents and publishers are generally turned off by stories that start with the weather. There are certain pet peeves that agents and publishers have. Popular agents will get hundreds of queries a week, so they will disregard entire works if they encounter one. Examples:

1) Starting out with the weather
2) Starting out with a dream sequence
3) Addressing the reader i.e. "gentle reader,"
4) Bad dialogue
5) Opening scene too much exposition, etc.

Each agent/publisher is different, but the fact is they all have pet peeves and will completely disregard your entire manuscript if they find one. If you start out with the weather, and that is their pet peeve, then they will stop reading your manuscript on sentence 2 and move on to the next query.

EDIT: Write whatever you want. As long as you can find an agent/publisher that doesn't find pet peeves in your writing, you're in the gold. Just know that it appears most agents find weather openings as pet peeves.

 

Which goes back to the fact that you can't please everyone. Your job is to write well, start in a way that is relevant and moves the story forward, and that works with the story line. I hate simpering female protags. Does that mean that every writer who has written one has done something wrong and everyone shouldn't do it? Nope. It means I won't read it, but lots of other people will. This is where writers make the mistake of giving up too early, but that's another thing entirely.

 

Whaaaat?! Are you sure? It worked for plenty of writers in the 1700s! I think stopping to address the reader just makes the reader feel more a part of the novel! And it's especially hand if you're a woman writer and feel it's important to explain what you're writing really didn't happen, and that satan hasn't taken control of your Puritan sensibilities, so you shouldn't be branded a harlot or burned at the stake for telling tales, which I find a personally powerful rhetorical strategy (not being burned alive for the things you write, I mean).

(more seriously, your "gentle reader" made me laugh. I love Literature, and Charlotte Temple is a pretty awesome book in the context of when it was written, but every time the action started getting particularly good and scandalous, Rowson would obnoxiously stop to address the readers concerns that she just had a dirty mind or was, for shame, just telling unwomanly tales and didn't have a very specific moral incoming, which was as disrupting as it was awkwardly hilarious to today's contexts)

 

But that doesn't at all tell me simplistically or prescriptively what I must do to become the next great writer. It's like, to figure out what all this means, I'd have to read a lot and study great fiction and struggle to figure out what works for me, with my skills, style, interests, perspectives and goals.

Errr, ugh, no thanks. I think I'll just keep showing instead of telling, thankyouverymuch!

I'm a writer, dammit, and I just typed something! Where's my contract? Where's my advance?!

 

ROFL.. I know it really sucks, doesn't it? I think you used to many ly words, btw... the rules say...

 

Yeah, I've learned to delete all adverbs. ALL of them! (they all end in ly right?)

Out of curiosity, I just searched a 5k word short story for 'ly' and found 23 instances... Belly is an adverb, right?

 

*puts hands on hips* are you trying to tell me all ly words are not adverbs? Well I just can't listen to that nonsense. I'm calling my agent... err publisher... mommy?

 

I really think you ought to re-read my posts in this thread. Nowhere did I spout off a "rule" and expect everyone to understand what it meant. If you actually go back to my first post in this thread, you'll see that I "translated" the Don't-start-with-the-weather rule by indicating what it really is trying to say, then suggested times when it can/should be broken.

For whatever reason you guys have decided that people are simply spouting rules without going any deeper, but that's not true. Certainly not in my posts.

Also? Why would "show don't tell" advice lead to people not using any adverbs? Or, as you charmingly call them, "ly words"?

Two different pieces of advice, addressing two different things.

I've never met a writer who says to never use adverbs. However, their overuse does smack of lazy writing. I don't want to read about characters who do and say things "quickly", "grumpily", "angrily", "morosely", "sadly", etc. every single paragraph. Plenty of new writers do that and, for me, there are much better ways to get across the same concepts...ones which actually vary the language you're using and the rhythm of your sentences. So, yeah, I think it's totally reasonable to encourage new writers to limit adverb usage and come up with different ways of conveying the mood or emotion of dialogue or action. If a new writer takes that piece of advice to mean that they can never use an adverb, ever, well... I don't know. Good luck to them. lol.

Again, I think this thread has actually contained a whole lot of explanation, and very little mindless rule-spouting. You obviously aren't reading it the same way. Oh, well.

 

You're right, we're not reading it the same way, at all. I said the problem with the rules is that people don't understand them and quite frankly they usually don't make sense. You're right, you explained. You said something about authors who can't figure out the basics of the "rules" being pathetic, or maybe it was pitiful. That was encouraging. I felt enlightened. As Pops said they're trying to make you buy the books, not teach you anything amazing. There is no magic key.

EDIT: Ah yes here it is..

As I said it obviously doesn't go without saying or this thread wouldn't exist would it?

The sooner they learn how to be good writers instead of following sales pitches like flocks of sheep the better off they'll be. That was my point, but you'll probably misinterpret that too. If you need to start with weather, start with it. Good grief.

 

Oh, boy.

Of course there are examples of bad showing. And examples of good telling. You know, some people are just crappy writers. They could take myriad advice, have deep, meaningful discussions about writing and life until the wee hours, and still turn out garbage. Does that mean that writing guidelines are useless because they can be misinterpreted or simply not used effectively by certain writers? Or because really good writers can do something completely different and succeed?

Most of the "guidelines" I've heard tend to address bad habits that new writers commonly fall into. That doesn't mean a good writer can't ignore that guideline--honestly, once you've reached a certain point in your own writing, you shouldn't need to rely on guidelines and advice like you did when you were first learning. But new writers, who often have no idea how to effectively structure their story and communicate their ideas, need guidelines. Do I think it'd be more helpful to tell a new writer "always be interesting"? Not really. A new writer doesn't have the tools to make much use of a bland, generic "rule" like that. It's so obvious as to be meaningless. Of course a story should always be interesting...but what does that mean? How does one achieve that?

Also, if someone is a good writer, I don't believe that listening to writing guidelines (and even adhering to the ones that make sense, for your story) will result in quality work only "some of the time". Honestly, I think you're taking a stand here for bad writers who are unable to think critically about their work, and I'm not entirely sure why. Bad writers aren't really my concern. lol. I commend you for making them your cause!

What counts as an "accomplished writer"? I've had five novels and seven short stories traditionally published. One of my novels even won an award. I feel pretty accomplished.

Look, as I said before, I don't believe that accomplished writers sit around and focus on the concept of "rules" or guidelines. We just write. Accomplished writers practice and practice to develop their instincts, to recognize what works and what doesn't, and to get better with each book they write. Yes, much of what I believe about good writing does happen to jibe with certain oft-repeated pieces of advice. There's probably a reason for that. Maybe because those pieces of advice generally make reasonable sense?

Nobody here has said that writers need to adhere to slogan-like rules except you. You're fighting a battle against a make-believe enemy. Stand down, soldier.

I believe the only hard and fast rules in writing have to do with grammar, sentence structure, etc. The mechanics. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, even those rules can be broken by a very talented individual (see Cormac McCarthy). The rest of the advice that gets passed around aren't "rules", and I'm very sorry that anyone has ever made you feel that they are. There is no International Writing Police. They will not come knocking at your door if you overuse adverbs or start your book with a description of the weather.

However, there are agents/publishers out there who feel strongly about some of these pieces of advice, and the new writer who wants to break them does so at their own peril. If you're not aiming to be traditionally published, you've got a lot more leeway.

 

It all depends on how well you do it. Starting with the weather isn't the issue, boring the reader is the issue. Avoid that and you'll be fine.

 

At Flannery's post.

Exactly.

 

The ad hominem attacks aside, this thread has taught me something. I now know I will not start with a sentence like "The man at the other side of the table looked as if he was personally responsible for the torrential rains that were sweeping Britain for more than a week now.", as this is likely an instant killer for my ms. Darn. I sweated over this sentence for an hour. I'll probably never learn. Thank you.

 

Cool. I stand corrected. You're right about everything. Why didn't you just say this from the start so I could know you were right all along?

 

The quote you commented was not given in a vaccuum. I was responding to popsicledeath's charge that the existence of writing "rules" makes people think there are no exceptions, ever, and that "rules" were being spouted without explanation. I don't believe that's true. And I do think it would be pitiful if a writer heard a rule like "don't start with the weather" and interpreted it to mean that they couldn't mention the weather in a story that opens with a tsunami destroying a village.

Basically, I was giving aspiring writers a whole lot more credit than popsicledeath. I don't believe that the "rules" are going to lead many writers into blind allegiance, to the detriment of their own story. I was using the most extreme example possible to illustrate my point.

This is the post that started this thread:

"I am just wondering why people say that you should never start a story out by describing the weather. It sets up the scene if its outside. What's the problem with it?"

I do think it's fairly obvious that if the beginning of your story concerns a tsunami, for example, that you'd mention it. What I think this thread was actually about was starting your story with a more mundane description of the weather. Somehow that set off a firestorm about the ridiculousness and injustice of writing "rules".

If the OP had said, "My story starts with my MC's mother being killed in a tornado, but I read you can't start a book by talking about the weather, so what do I do now?", yes, I'd think that was a bit pathetic. Sorry. But that's not what was said. In my post I was responding to popsicledeath's ranting about how "rules" are spouted without explanation and that they can turn writers into mindless zombies who are unwilling to ever deviate from what they've heard is a rule. As I said, I give the vast majority of writers far more credit than that.

Sorry you found that discouraging. Again, I think you're just not really understanding my posts. Also: still not sure where you felt I was spouting off rules as gospel without explanation.

 

Or even if they do know what it means. The original version of the advice was "prefer showing to telling" which is much better advice but means that people -- heaven forbid! -- have to think. "Show, don't tell" avoids that annoyance, and people just have no strike out everything that tells, regardless of how that trashes the story. There's the old story of the drunk who falls off a horse on one side, so when he gets back on he leans so far over to the other side that he falls off on that side. Most novice writers fall off on the side of telling too much. When they get back on, there are hordes of pundits pushing them off on the other side!

What we should really be teaching to (or learning as) novice writers is how to recognize the different styles of writing -- showing v. telling, active v. passive, adverb-rich v. adverb-light and so on -- and to develop an ear for what the effects of those styles are, so they can balance them and use them well.