I'm with you on that one, Mss. Those rules were written in a totally different publishing world, anyway, when there were hundreds of pulp mags that sold a million copies and were churned out so fast that there was so time to do rewrites if an editor didn't want them, and doing rewrites would waste a lot of paper if they were not needed. And with so many of them, I bet it was a lot easier to find someone who would take your work than it is now, so it was more worth it to keep it on the market. Mo's reinterpretation fits today's world.
What works for Heinlein may not work for you. I agree persistence is a virtue, but not every project you begin will be worthy of pushing through to the end. As for never rewriting, I personally think that is bull. If you recognize a steaming heap in the middle of your manuscript, scrape it up, hose it down, and rebuild as needed. Heinlein was another of those authors who fell in love with his verbal diarrhea in his later years. He could have used a brutal editor to cut out excess crud.
I think you missed the Fight Club reference, my friend. And when she says talking about it makes it a chore, she probably means that thinking about it too deeply and too often can make it weigh on your mind and take the fun out of it. This isn't to say you can't become passionate and want to get super worked up over something; just don't burn yourself out. As for not having to get it published: I decided to translate that as "Make sure somebody gets a chance to enjoy it." Share your hard work with the world. Art is for everyone and even if its not great, it may have a profound effect on someone. The internet makes this goal very easy..
It's succinct. I like it. You can see what point he's trying to make--just get the writing done and avoid over critiquing yourself.
Lol - that sounds like he is saying "Just write. Who cares." Which, for all I know, could be it exactly! 'If you want to be a writer by profession, then just write, make it as good as you can and put it out there. Don't sweat the small stuff.' Doesn't this sound like sound advice?
This sounds to me like what he was saying. How I took it anyway. And this advice, taken this way, rings true through the ages, no matter what you're writing. It's the fundamentals of being a writer, the interpretation I got from it, that's all.
I disagree with him 100% First of all, when was there ever rules or barriers in writing? You write what you want to write and do what you have to do to accomplish your goal in writing.
In his On Writing web page, Robert J. Sawyer shared his views on Heinlein's five rules, plus added a sixth of his own.
I have trouble with #3. I can see where there's a problem with over-editing, over-rewriting, but I can't imagine not re-writing. Many follow the method of "crappy first draft" then "rewrite in second draft." Nobody could turn in the crappy first draft and expect any success. (Unless you have a name like "Stephen King" whose shopping list would sell a million copies.) Sometimes, you have to re-write to make things better. Charlie
Yep, right on the money. Including the advice-seeking-rejecting-wannabe dropout rate, which is funny and I enjoyed it (it's true of lots of things, including writing). I especially like the tidbit about finishing the story being crucial to actually learning something about writing it. You can't learn very much about storytelling by abandoning an incomplete piece of work (it's a lot like hashing out an idea or concept, which never seems very productive). Part of learning to write fiction is to craft and shape a piece in order to have it read like you think it oughta. But it's actually the story that will dictate in many ways what the rest of it oughtabedoing. You can't know that if you don't actually write to the end of the story. Then, the part about stories never being finished, just abandoned. I think I understand this, too, as a very good reason not to do what I tend to do endlessly, which is to tinker and rewrite. In fact, that's why I submit 'em, to be free of them so I can get on to something else. I don't think it's ever productive to imagine you're writing the "perfect" story--or even, for that matter, to think there is such a thing, though you better not count on a sloppy job to be read as a gem in the rough--least of all by an agent or editor. I can see how all this kind of begins to sound circular or like talking out of both sides of your mouth--the majority of (even good) advice is usually ignored (and there's a lot of it out there); finishing a story is essential to learning how to write 'em at all (but then, of course, there's the question of how to make it to the finish line if you don't know what you're doing at the outset); "learn to abandon your stories," by putting an end to rewriting 'em (and yet many writers see "rewriting" as the actual writing experience--so where does that judgement get made?). I have a feeling it all makes more sense to a dedicated writer or at least to one with some experience than to a spanking new novice or someone who's just toying with the notion of being an author. It's a complicated thing--this fiction writing. I think that's why you don't see any great novelists who attribute their success to a particular how-to-write book. Which, in turn, is why there can be so many how-to-write books on the shelves. Which, in its turn, is why a publisher can easily capitalize on a famous author's how-to-write formula, whether or not he’s actually got one. My vote is still for "resonance." It never hurts to try a piece of advice; but if it doesn't ring true at the end of your fingertips, then go with something that does.
I'd heard the rules a bit differently: 1. Write. 2. Finish what you write. 3. Don't rewrite (to death) 4. Send it out. 5. Keep sending it out until sold. Many people write. Fewer finish - far, far fewer. Now, a little dickering around is fine, but there comes a point where you may find yourself "having written" for years with little to show for it but false starts and nebulous "worldbuilding notes." I've been writing for ... what is it, 10 years now? Since fifth grade. I've read several books on writing, including Gerrold's and King's and Strunk & White. I've written parts of two novels and a bunch of "completed" (some are being re-written) short stories and essays. I've won writing prizes at my university. And as far as I can tell, there really is no substitute for writing and finishing your work. That doesn't mean "keep writing even when you have no where to go." But it does mean that if you aren't emphasizing a finished product, it is very very easy to write stories that drag - because you're writing to have written rather than to tell the bloody story - and easier still to get caught up in the worldbuilding notes and fail to write the actual story/book. Just my two cents.
I agree with those rules, though technically there aren't any real rules to writing, except finding what works for your chosen audience. I think the #3 rule is great for the first draft, and something to keep in mind while going through and doing the second or third draft rewrites. I think many people who finish a first draft (which as it was pointed out is very few who actually do write) often get sucked into endless rewriting of the second draft because they do second guess themselves too much. The first draft is no place to do rewrites. When problems are noticed a note should be made to rewrite during the second draft, and then the first draft should continue to be written as if that change has already been made. I do also don't think the last rule is necessarily correct either. If after 100 rejections have come in, the writer should take a look at what they wrote and try to figure out what the problem could be. Maybe they are aiming at the wrong audience. Maybe the writing needs to be better. Maybe there are holes in the plot, or under developed characters, or any other number of technical problems that would have editors throwing their manuscript in the trash. Also the last rule might lead to some writers getting taken advantage of in their desperate attempt to get published, like being scammed by self publishing and editing schemes. So it is something to think about.
Heinlein was one of the greatest science fiction writers ever. Clearly those rules work, at least to some degree. But maybe the 1950s was different to now in terms of writing and a market for it.
Hoo boy, this one should be etched in stone! Before the words are even out of your mouth, you just know your project is doomed.
I was just thinking if one can be successful as an author if one disregards all the rules of writing and just write as it comes to you. With no regards to mixing tenses, short, long paragraphs, indentation, no indentation, mixing POVs, punctuation, and all other rules, can one pull it off without anyone raising eyebrows? I also think it would have to be a very compelling to get any publisher's attention. Your reader friends probably will cringe as they read the piece. Any thoughts on this? Has anyone pulled this off yet? Can you refer such book/novel? Are you a conformist or you tend to break some/all rules? Thanks.
What are these rules, and why hasn't anyone told me yet? The only 'rules' I know is 1) write something that can be read, and 2) don't write Harry Potter.
If you are a best selling author, you might get away with it. If not, no one is likely to read past the first page.
I doubt these are the only rules you recognize. Sometimes advice on this forum makes me ask, why bother asking if everything is OK? If one read a page where tense was inconsistent for no obvious reason, most people would judge the writer as having poor grammar skills and the novel as not ready for prime time. Add walls of text and faulty punctuation and one may not even read the first page at all.
I think 'A Girl is a Half Formed Thing' was rejected by a number before being published. It was a debut novel written in an odd style - Here, for example, are the opening lines: "For you. You'll soon. You'll give her name. In the stitches of her skin she'll wear your say." It's a fairly short book but then there are a lot of half formed sentences. I think it won awards and sold well.
The "rules" that you cite are generally intended to make a work more readable, easier to follow. If there is a reason to break one, go ahead. But conformity is not the issue.
I can agree about tenses, and writing sentences that make sense, but I'm not too sure about grammar or spelling. What about writers that use a heavy dialect? Like the guy who wrote Trainspotting, or Robert Burns? It might not be advisable if you want to be published by a major publishing house, but it's not a 'rule' I would say.
Amazon reviews for this book beg to differ with you. It looks like it won an award (singular) but sales of the hardcover has a decent rating. The Amazon blurb says it won the Goldsmith's prize. The fact this is an English award and given @Lemex's comments, it suggests perhaps the English have a unique perspective on literature. There is a comment on Amazon that the publisher calling it 'prose' instead of a novel made a difference in how the book was perceived. If that's the case then one has to ask, does it follow rules of prose?
Depends on what rules you mean. Certain rules are there to keep things clear. Put a comma in the wrong spot and it can flip the meaning of your sentence. And once the reader mistakes the meaning you could lose him. He'll be going one way while you're going another. I think as long as you can write amazing clear prose you'd be okay but it's amazing how hard that is to achieve - even with the rules of grammar and the more flexible rules of style.
Dialogue and dialect are completely different animals from the rest of the book parts. This doesn't mean one cannot forego some grammar. Leaving verbs and conjunctions out for effect is one example. But that's not what the OP asks.
