The 'Rules' of writing.

To paraphrase Barbossa, "They're not so much rules, more what you'd call guidelines."

If your plot flows, your characters are believable, and readers feel immersed in your book, then you can get away with anything, except inconsistency. Sometimes deliberately breaking a rule that you would normally be expected to adhere to can make a sentence leap off the page.

 

I bet sales are exorbitantly higher for books about how to write fiction than it is for fiction itself. And there's your answer. It's far more profitable and easier to write about the rules of fiction than create a singular self-contained universe with its own rules.

 

I hate "how to write" books.

 

In general, I agree with you, but I have certainly read a few that were very helpful. Any book that reduces the art of writing to some kind of formula really gets up my nose. On the other hand, any book that gets you to take an analytical look at your own writing gets the thumbs-up from me.

The truly helpful books don't tell you 'how to sell your book in three easy steps.' Good writing books can pinpoint areas where you're having trouble. Beware of anybody's flat 'do and do not' rules, and instead concentrate on the 'why' and 'how.' Learn why something works or doesn't work, depending on context. Learn how to create certain reactions in your readers.

I would advise doing a fair bit of writing BEFORE you start acquiring and reading how-to books, though. That way you'll know what the teachers are talking about, and you'll also have some notion of what your strengths and weaknesses are.

Most great writers of the past didn't have access to how-to books. They just wrote. (And probably did a lot of reading as well, so they kind of had a notion of what they were aiming for.) So the idea that you must learn all about writing before you start is nonsense. But, of course, encouraging this notion in newbies certainly makes money for how-to writers and creative writing teachers, doesn't it?

 

This is why I roll my eyes when writers trot out the old line, "This is something only writers care about. I've never seen it mentioned in a review." in relation to anything from POV to comma splices. Actually, only writers know the correct terminology for what's wrong and can articulate it.

 

I think you're right. However, I also think it's important to distinguish between producing substandard English, and using storytelling tools that some people don't like. There are rules (SPAG) and there are preferences.

People may like or dislike a prologue, or a cliffhanger ending to every chapter, or dialogue rather than narrative, lots (or little) setting description, or the use of 'said' as the only dialogue tag. These are all a matter of personal preference and none are inherently 'wrong.' However, bad grammar, spelling and sentence structure, sprinkling punctuation marks around like seasoning, or using a similar-sounding word when you actually mean something else? These are universal faults, not preferences. They can interfere with comprehension and add nothing positive to the writing at all.

 

This is where I am now thanks to this forum. writing one

 

I really enjoy KJ Charles' fiction, but lately I've been finding I appreciate her non-fiction at least as much.

In response to some silliness on Twitter, she's come up with a pretty good response to all the stupid rules writers are sometimes told to follow...

http://kjcharleswriter.com/2017/12/12/writers-stop-doing-this/

(I don't think there's anything in the article we haven't discussed on this board in the past, but it's nice to have it all in one place...)

 

In a moment of weakness years ago I bought a book on writing, written by an agent, called The First Five Pages or something like that. The idea was that for any book to get an agent's attention it must do it in the first five pages, or it will be rejected. The problem with the book was that its first five page were dull and droning. I quit after the first five pages and donated it to Goodwill.

 

I don't tend to think I break many writing rules, but I think I've broken all of the ones listed there. I guess I don't give these rules too much thought. I like to read interviews and such by industry experts, but all these don'ts send my head spinning. What's left to write or how do you write even if you set out to follow such rules? I think being an avid reader is going to help a writer see things that can work and how they work regardless if they are breaking any so-called rules. Like I said, I don't think of myself as a big rule breaker, but I'm also smart enough to spot bad or stupid advice. There is truth and reason behind some of these rules, but the way they are being delivered as sort of a blanket approach to good writing is ridiculous.

 

I spent more than a dozen years as an editor for a publisher of law treatises and related materials. Our authors were all volunteer lawyers, so you can imagine both the range of styles and abilities, and the range of willingness to be edited. We had our house rules and our house suggestions, incorporating some of the rules above. Limiting passive tense was (hah!) a big one, and it's a problem for lawyers, who tend to be careful about attribution and to be narrow and precise as possible.

We often reviewed and updated our house rules, and I worked very hard to enforce most of the rules most of the time, and many of the suggestions, and I must say, with some modesty [no I am not compelled to and in fact I could have just said], that when the authors and I worked together, the pieces and books usually came out better. [this is one of those run-on sentences that I would think twice about] I also worked to respect the author's voice and style. When the rules are generally followed and exceptions reasonably allowed, the system works. I also made liberal use of style books like Garner's Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. Especially in dealing with recalcitrant attorney authors, who needed to see some sort of authority beyond our own style book.

Whether a rule makes absolute sense in the real world is one thing (they never do, there are always exceptions); but whether the publisher or agent believes in them is another. I'd suggest seeing what sort of writing guides a publisher or agent follows. If that can be determined.

 

Ignoring all the self published books for the moment, I have always wondered how many authors that wrote something that got picked up by a real publishing house would have benefitted from any sort of general rules of thumb. It seems like people writing on that level are likely to have a natural knack with language and ideas that are going to catch the notice of an editor regardless of whatever minor sins they commit. I can't shake the feeling that a lot of people are kidding themselves that they'll graduate from dabbler to published author if they simply get their adverbs under control or stop mentioning the weather. Real control of language doesn't come from trying hard as much as internalizing the kind of vocabulary and flow of well crafted English that comes from being able to digest challenging reading material.

 

Holy shit. That's an EXCELLENT article. Okay, I laughed in a few places, but geez. How many times have we seen 'debates' turn to fury on this forum over some of these issues? Just silly. I love her overall prescription: Write mindfully.

 

Yes. I reckon just because something is often done badly doesn't mean you should stop doing it altogether. It means you should learn to do it well. Words, syntax, point of view, etc ...all tools in the writer's toolbox. It makes sense to learn to use them all, not just employ the equivalent of a hammer in every instance, because it's easy to use.

 

Interesting article, I am also told not to use passives @SomeGuy , and it's good to know there will be times when passive will work or at least be a cheap fix. .

Now to go fourth and write how I please, just watching my tenses, sentence framents. and -ings

 

I especially like what KJ Charles says about people who apply the blanket 'never use passive tense' rule, when they don't actually know how to recognise passive tense. They think if you just remove every instance of 'was,' you'll be safe.

So you can't write a sentence like, "I was Homecoming Queen in 1966."

 

Really great article, Tenderiser! Loved what she had to say about was's. That's been something I've been trying to sort out for years wondering where to place and use a was because it feels so stationary. I've tried to stop saying it's passive because I don't think I was/am calling it right. The more I read the less it becomes an overall problem and more individualistic -- is it right for this particular tone and paragraph rather than an automatic - no.

I especially liked the call to stop frowning on adverbs & adjectives. I noticed on another sites writers have really take this to heart and the effects have made their prose bizarre. Could be that adjectives are also being seen as telling - a disturbing trend that has popped up among critiquers but when the writer follows the advice and takes them out for the next draft of critiques those same critiquers are now confused as to what's going on because the adjectives were actually clarifying.

 

Why does writing have to be so complex, can I just story tell and have someone else do the writing for me.

 

Interestingly, I was just discussing this issue with a friend (face to face) the other day. What if a storyteller told a story verbally, while recording the event? Then went away and transcribed what they'd said. Would this help people who can speak properly, but have trouble 'writing?'

Hard to say, but it might be fun to try. It might work really well with an experienced storyteller, but if somebody hems and haws and verbally wanders around off track, it probably wouldn't.

 

Right, might be interesting. I'm currently transcribing my storytelling but damn it's a bitch to get right. and everytime I think I got it, ti's wrong somehow Passive, -ing, framented scentences. just ready to pull my hair out, dump lighter fluid all over my computer and books and set it on fire and then jump off a bridge.

 

Whoops, just realized I called Bayview, Tenderizer. My bad. Avatar -switch? I'm terrible when people change their avatars. I'm like who's this - and I know - duh, look at the name.

 

I'm guessing it wouldn't work. Story telling in the oral tradition relies so much on tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, expressions, and the like; a plain transcript would lose most of that.

BTW, grammar police alert here. Every story is told verbally, in that every story uses words. Some are told aloud, e.g., orally, while others are written down. Picky, picky, picky, I know. But it's the truth. "The misuse of verbal for oral has a long history and is still common. Nevertheless the distinction is worth fighting for . . . ." Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (2d Ed. 1995, Trade Paperback 2001) at 911.

You can take the legal editor out of his office, but you can't take out the legal editor.

 

Was like a was like a was like a was and was and was like a was and like a was was was.