Doing it all wrong -- and getting it right

[IdiotsRUs]

So, we've all seen the 'rules' that as writers we should follow. Write tight. Too much backstory is bad mmkay? If it's your first novel, don't go over 100K ( or 120 odd if it's SFF). Get inside the character's head. Avoid filter words. Get the plot moving and keep it moving. If it isn't essential to the plot, don't put it in. Avoid excessive description. Use your grammar: gerrund clauses are to be used sparingly. No run on sentences.

So I'm reading a book at the mo that breaks every single one.

Write tight? Often a dozen words are used when five would do.

Not too much backstory? Between each chapter is an often lengthy chunk of backstory and / or an authorial aside.

Don't have your word count too high? A debut novel, and a quick, and very conservative estimate would put this at least 180k - possibly as much as 200k.

Get inside the character's head? It's written in third, and while it isn't omni, we don't get inside their heads much either, so it's not limited. It's kind of ...third person vague.

Avoid filter words? If these were all cut, the book would proably be 5k shorter.

Get the plot moving? Well the end of the first act was about half way. Then the poop hit the fan for fifty pages. The next fifty pages have been....nothing much in the way of plot. The MC is planning, but I don't know what he's planning because of the POV vague thing. He's wearing a very nice ( and minutely described) jacket though.

If it isn't essential to the plot, don't put it in. Avoid excessive description? Well I know the exact ingredients of every meal the MC has eaten -- in fact I could probably write out the recipies. The clothes are described down to the last stitch. Everything is described. Each district of the city is laid out, whether the MC goes there or not -- and tbh I can't keep all the names straight in my head.

Use your grammar: gerrund clauses are to be used sparingly. No run on sentences. Gerrund clauses are sprinked over the page like hundreds and thousands. Comma / semi colon splicing is so common I'm beginning to wonder if the author's keyboard has an intermittent problem with the full stop key.


So, given all this, why the hell am I enjoying it so much?

[Staroffurby]

About a month ago i was talking about the very same thing. A friend had just finished a book that broke the rules. I can't remember how the conversation went due to some fermented sugar based drinks being served. The solution we came to was simply the author enjoyed this rebel writing style, breaking the rules gave them a kick and this enjoyment came across in the writing.

As some say "Rules are there to be broken!"

[JJ Cooper]

Last time I use you as a BETA, IdoitsRUs. Could have just sent me an email.

JJ

[JJ Cooper]

Third person vague. Brilliant. I'm gonna use that now.

I suppose I need to get a bit serious because we're in the novel writing thread.

I got nothing...wait...plot beats all. There - carry on.

JJ

[Prozyan]

So, given all this, why the hell am I enjoying it so much?

Thats the answer right there. The "rules" exist to help make a book more enjoyable. In general, they aren't rock hard "rules" but more like guidelines. Entertainment is the most important, and often the most difficult, factor.

[HeronW]

Because what works outweighs what doesn't work.
There's something to make you care wtf happens.
You paid for the book and damnit you don't want to waste it by tossing it in the bin.
You got it for free and it kills time nicely.
:}

[Staroffurby]

Thats the answer right there. The "rules" exist to help make a book more enjoyable. In general, they aren't rock hard "rules" but more like guidelines. Entertainment is the most important, and often the most difficult, factor.

You have hit upon a good point. Sometimes we are so focused on these rules and technique that we forget the most important thing, enjoyment. Anything you write must be found enjoyable by the reader and sadly i think too many forget that.

[Juniper1]

Because writing is a creative venture, reading is a subjective one, and rules can stifle both. Delete rule, insert suggestion. (I do admit to referring to Vonnegut's eight rules periodically. They make me less fearful about the things I must write and the ways I must write them.)

Enjoy your good read.

[Toothpaste]

Many new writers think they are the exception to the rules. Few are. Some, though, turn out to be.

As others have said, rules are meant to be broken, but you can only really break them if you know them in the first place. To me also the number one rule of writing is "If it works, do it". You can do whatever the heck you want in writing so long as you do it well.

[Danger Jane]

Prozyan said it well. The "rules" aren't exactly made to be broken...but many stories would be incoherent without them. I think some, though, must thrill or touch some deeper part of us, because they keep us reading in spite of defying those conventions (and not for artistic effect).

[IdiotsRUs]

I just sort of wondered. I mean I've seen agents and editors all throw up their hands in horror at the mere mention of not using the 'rules' I've stated.

Yet at least one agent and one editor ( major publishing house too) must not worry too much about them :) They've been lying all that time!

I'm still wondering what it is exactly about this book I like, and I can't put my finger on it. It's just good. Except all those recipies, I could live without those.

[ishtar'sgate]

So, given all this, why the hell am I enjoying it so much?
Because the author knows how to tell a great story. For me, rules are loose suggestions and are not set in stone. Rules may help your framework but by and large don't help much when it comes to the artistic part of storytelling.
Linnea

[Use Her Name]

Each novel stands on its own. I don't in particular like reading novels that have few adjectives and adverbials. The writing seems weak and watered down. It is fine for someone who reads at a grade school level. Somewhere down the line, editors started to want and expect books written for people with limited vocabularies. I personally like reading older literature, and books written by writers from South America and other countries. South Africa is putting out some wonderful novelists now. There is more freedom in those books, more poetry, and more obvious love of the craft.

I once posted the starting chapter of a book that had a few exclamation marks in it. I was nearly threatened with death, called all sorts of names, told I had no writing skills whatsoever. Imagine my surprise when I read a Hemingway novel and found multiple use of exclamation marks throughout. Who should I trust, some close minded, unpublished 16 year old, or a classic novelist?

[miles]

Is there a reason you're keeping the title of this book secret?

[sunandshadow]

Perhaps the question should be, would the book be even more fun if it had been edited to follow some rules better?

[Staroffurby]

Is there a reason you're keeping the title of this book secret?

Maybe because its embarrassing? I know its a Mr Man book :)

[IdiotsRUs]

Maybe because its embarrassing? I know its a Mr Man book :)

Busted!

Not any particular reason bar : I don't want to diss what I think is a favourite book of a few people here. ( it's regularly reccommended in one of the genre forums) It's wasn't about the book, it was about the rules or lack thereof.

Perhaps the question should be, would the book be even more fun if it had been edited to follow some rules better? Possibly.

[SPMiller]

It sounds like you're talking about Robert Jordan's books. They fit all your criteria.

But I never see those recommended, at least not when we're being serious ;)

[Staroffurby]

It sounds like you're talking about Robert Jordan's books. They fit all your criteria.

But I never see those recommended, at least not when we're being serious ;)

That name never came to mind and it could well be one of his books. Not my taste at all, did try reading the Dragon reborn i think it was called. Very hard to read and if i remember correctly the fragmented sentences made it hard work.

[Shweta]

Actually a name came to my mind. I've recommended a book, several times, that fits everything IRUs said there if I remember right. The story starts on page 60, I swear. But it is so much fun I don't care.

That's part of why I recommend it. I think some of us get... locked down into the rules. The rules are all there for reasons, and they're not going to save a lame story, they're not going to destroy an awesome story, and they're not always applicable.

ETA: However, if IRUs means the book I'm thinking about, I'd say everything laid out in post #1 here is a reason I didn't like the book as much as I could have (ditto my husband, who is not a writer).

[Triomferus]

Last time I use you as a BETA, IdoitsRUs. Could have just sent me an email.

JJ

Third person vague. Brilliant. I'm gonna use that now.

I suppose I need to get a bit serious because we're in the novel writing thread.

I got nothing...wait...plot beats all. There - carry on.

JJ

I'm confused... what do these posts have to do with the thread?

[Shweta]

I'm confused... what do these posts have to do with the thread?

I think maybe you're not getting the joke there?

[Triomferus]

I think maybe you're not getting the joke there?

The thought did cross my mind, but it seemed TOO serious to be a joke :).

[Shweta]

Since you're new and might need to be poked to do this: check your rep comments :D

Also, :welcome:

[Triomferus]

Thanks :). I actually didn't notice that this forum had reputation points, either :D.

[Dawnstorm]

Thought experiment: You're reading the slush pile. You've found ten competent books so far. Of those, nine adhere to all the "rules". One doesn't. Which one stands out?

Most of the rules out there align to a describable taste.

"Write tight", "Not too much backstory?", "Don't have your word count too high?", "Get the plot moving?", " If it isn't essential to the plot, don't put it in. Avoid excessive description?":Suspense reader (probably not much of an explorer)

"Get inside the character's head?", "Avoid filter words?": empathy/roleplaying over social role/observation/comments

Taken together that pretty much rules out, say, all classical Utopias, to name an obvious example. These rules are biased to the "virtual reality thrill ride" (in computer game terminology: "ego shooters" or "1st person perspective role playing games" fit the bill best; simulations - not so much). I also predict that these rules don't go down well with William Gibson, whose power usually comes from images and pattern-construction rather than from characters and action.

Of these rules I can tolerate most, but I utterly dispise "If it isn't essential to the plot, don't put it in." This pretty much deprives me of my reason to read. For my reading experience,plot is an excuse to present characters, setting, etc. I like exploration. Follow this rule and you'll almost certainly lessen the impact of your book for me. I'll probably read it quickly; it'll be entertaining, and - eventually - forgotton, unless you have a twist at the end, in which case it'll be the book with the twist at the end, and nothing much more.

The "use X sparingly" is almost always useful advice or almost never. You can insert pretty much anything for X. Also, "sparingly" is a bit vauge. The assumption is, generally, that you shouldn't overuse stuff (but that's not better; notice the entirely subjective "over"?). Singling out "gerund clauses" or "adverbs and adjectives" is a bit silly; they're probably singled out because someone influential noticed them at one time. Basically, you can replace all those with "pay attention to what you do". Easier to customise, more comprehensive.

[qwerty]

Please, could someone define 'filter words' for me?

With trepidation, I recently sent a requested full that I knew broke a fair few rules - tense, for one. Also, another ms to the same agent in which I had adherred to the rules. The agent says the latter is not strong enough, but he is now repping the one with the rule-breaking bits.

Huh, now I'm wondering if I should re-write the well-behaved novel and make a point of breaking those damn rules!

[Shweta]

Filter:
"I saw him walk into the room and smile."
Non-filter:
"He walked into the room and smiled."

Filter words are things like see/hear/notice -- they're a given, really, in a close-3rd POV. And getting rid of them pulls you closer in to the POV, so that's a good thing if you want to be close to a character's head. They're useful, though, as a distancing mechanism:

"Sarah saw him walk into the room and smile."
We're floating a bit outside Sarah's head here, which can be what the writer wants. If the OP is referring to the book I think, there is a really good reason for the floaty 3p vague.

[Dawnstorm]

Huh, now I'm wondering if I should re-write the well-behaved novel and make a point of breaking those damn rules!

No, don't. That's as bad as following those rules in the first place.

With trepidation, I recently sent a requested full that I knew broke a fair few rules - tense, for one. [...] The agent says the latter is not strong enough, but he is now repping the one with the rule-breaking bits.

I'm pretty sure it's not the "rule-breaking" that makes the other one stronger. I suspect it sounds more like you. People are usually better at writing in their own style. That's all there is to it, really.

Rules face you with a dilemma. You can either follow or break them; but what you should really do is ignore them. Rules make writing a box-ticking excercise. That's what's hurting your writing; not the rules as such.

By all means think about those rules, assess them, take what you find useful. But don't write with them in mind, and don't use them to edit either. Use them to think about things you wouldn't otherwise think of. That's pretty much the only way they're useful.

(I'm biased against "rules", in case you didn't notice. ;) )

[JJ Cooper]

The thought did cross my mind, but it seemed TOO serious to be a joke :).

Hey, at least someone is quoting me.

I imagine Shweta's rep comment went something like - 'JJ's an Aussie with a weird sense of humour. We tolerate him because he's soooooo handsome.'

Back on track.

My thrillers are in third person limited and I have a habit of throwing in too many filter words. Getting it right in the end is a challenge. I'm finding the more I write, the more I trust that I can do without them.

I don't think there are rules to writing (apart from what my agent and/or editor says), more like guidelines to getting started.

JJ

[Shweta]

Actually I said "JJ is actually an FBI agent pretending to be an Aussie so be very very nice to him."






What?
Would I lie?

[JJ Cooper]

They could never beat it out of me. But, a couple of nights in the drunk thread and I let that secret slip fairly quick.

JJ

[Exir]

The best way to think of rules is to think of them as reminders. Really, don't think of following or breaking them. Just think of them as gentle reminders pointing out instances where you have to pay special attention. And follow your gut and instinct.

My two cents.

[IdiotsRUs]

Actually a name came to my mind. I've recommended a book, several times, that fits everything IRUs said there if I remember right. The story starts on page 60, I swear. But it is so much fun I don't care.

That's part of why I recommend it. I think some of us get... locked down into the rules. The rules are all there for reasons, and they're not going to save a lame story, they're not going to destroy an awesome story, and they're not always applicable.

ETA: However, if IRUs means the book I'm thinking about, I'd say everything laid out in post #1 here is a reason I didn't like the book as much as I could have (ditto my husband, who is not a writer).
You were right :)

I think I may well enjoy it more if the so-called 'rules' weren't bent quite so often. Not writing tight, excessive description I can live with. I like lush writing. The chunks of backstory are nicely written and interesting, but take me away from the main story just when it's getting exciting. The vague POV and filter words make me feel distanced from the characters. As for the grammar -- I do it myself occassionally so I can hardly complain. But not every sentence. It's quite distracting.

It's a lesson learned for me. A reminder that I need to pay attention in my own work, but that sometimes you can bend those rules till they look like a pretzel. Reading this book has been an education as well as fun.

[Shweta]

You were right :)
I'm so amused that I pegged it from your description.
So did my husband, independently. We had a great spousal bonding moment. "Oh yeah, the food!"

[dawinsor]

I think it's not the rules themselves that matter, but the effect they're meant to help along. Most of them are aimed at drawing a reader into the story and propelling them along in a way that makes them feel like they're right there, part of the story. But if you can create that effect in a different way, no one's going to care. Or maybe you create a different effect that readers still find compelling. That's fine too.

The rules are only the surface. It's what's under them that matters.

[steveg144]

A writer with an enormous amount of real talent and real experience can get away with breaking the rules (deliberately, or otherwise). But we really should make an effort to abide by the rules, at least during the early stages. Think of how much time Picasso spent doing realist work before he had enough talent and guts to break the rules. We owe it to ourselves to do that hard plow-work of learning and mastering the rules before we presume to break any of them.

[Shweta]

We owe it to ourselves to do that hard plow-work of learning and mastering the rules before we presume to break any of them.

I absolutely agree.
But I also don't think one can master the rules without paying attention to why they're there and what effect they have. Learning "No adverbs" is not mastering anything. Learning about the effect of adverbs on prose, and what happens when you kill them/keep them, is the route to mastery.

I'm all for awareness of the form and the craft. I do, however, think that lists of rules sometimes mask the complexity and subtlety of the craft; and I am a great believer in awareness.

Course, I have yet to finish a novel, so I guess I'll let you all know how that works out for me :D

[Melenka]

I spent years learning to write, and I value the insights and skills I gained. I am sure that the rules and patterns established during the learning process inform my writing. When it comes down to putting words on paper (or screen), I do not consciously remember any of it. What I remember most about my writing classes is the work I produced. Some of it was fairly decent. Much of it was not. Most of it was lost in a flood, which in retrospect was hardly a loss at all.

The no adverbs rule must be fairly recent, by which I mean some time in the last 20 years or so. I will happily ignore it. It's rather hard to write a suspense novel without the word "quickly".

[Shweta]

It's rather hard to write a suspense novel without the word "quickly".
It is? I'd have thought the most important quickness in a suspense novel was quick action, and English has a billion ways to talk about that...

[Melenka]

Sometimes, things have to be done quickly. Or quietly. Avoiding use of adverbs simply because there is a rule somewhere that says you should makes no sense to me. I would come to the defense of other parts of speech were they to come under attack. I like having the entire language at my disposal when I write.

[Shweta]

Sometimes, things have to be done quickly. Or quietly. Avoiding use of adverbs simply because there is a rule somewhere that says you should makes no sense to me. I would come to the defense of other parts of speech were they to come under attack. I like having the entire language at my disposal when I write.

I have three things to say to this.

Thing the first:

First they came for the adverbs,
and I didn't speak up because I didn't use adverbs.
Then they came for the adjectives,
and I didn't speak up because I didn't use adjectives.
Then they came for the pronouns,
- didn't speak up because didn't use pronouns.
Then came for the nouns,
- didn't speak up because didn't use
Then for the verbs,
- and by then no...

- Gerry Quinn

Thing the second (click for bigger image):

http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/bonobo-conspiracy/0737.png (http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/bonobo-conspiracy/?i=737)


Thing the third: Right, it's about 9 hours past bedtime. G'night! *splat*

[angeliz2k]

Well, I'm going to be a little curmudgen and say "bah! humbug" to the rules. I have my own style, and I really don't like being told that there are "rules" about how I'm "supposed" to write. It makes me feel like I'm being told my writing doesn't conform so it's not good.

On the other hand, that could just be pride. Who knows? And the rules are probably great guidelines. I just don't like the kind of writing it encourages.

[SPMiller]

As a computer scientist, I would be willing to include the adverb bootyliciously in our lexicon. I'll get back to you when I figure out how.

[IdiotsRUs]

And the rules are probably great guidelines. I just don't like the kind of writing it encourages.

Well these last few days reading this book have taught me exactly why they are guidlines, because I can see the effect they had on me when I was reading.

As a computer scientist, I would be willing to include the adverb bootyliciously in our lexicon. I'll get back to you when I figure out how.

My new PC boots up bootyliciously :)

[Bubastes]

I absolutely agree.
But I also don't think one can master the rules without paying attention to why they're there and what effect they have. Learning "No adverbs" is not mastering anything. Learning about the effect of adverbs on prose, and what happens when you kill them/keep them, is the route to mastery.

I'm all for awareness of the form and the craft. I do, however, think that lists of rules sometimes mask the complexity and subtlety of the craft; and I am a great believer in awareness.


I wanted to make sure this part was highlighted.

Using the "quickly" example, yes, you may need a character to do something quickly. I believe, however, that using a stronger verb instead of the adverb may improve your writing. Knowing the no-adverb "rule" forces you to explore options that could be better. It gives you a framework in which to play with language.

Try it!

Start with: He walked quickly into the room.

Now, see how many ways you can rewrite this without using an adverb. Are they stronger? Weaker? Do any of those options convey what you want better than the original sentence? Why or why not? It's fun (at least it is to me)!

[JoNightshade]

There is only rule in writing: Write something I can't put down.

[MsK]

Most of the time, when a book annoys me, it is because it has broken all the rules. Yet, sometimes, that same annoying book can keep me up reading 'til the wee hours, annoyed as heck, but, still reading.
Sometimes, things just work out... rules or no rules.

[Ken]

rules can sometimes trip you up.
If you're trying to write for the purpose of achieving a particular affect,
your stories can come to have an artificial ring to them,
and even seem formulamatic,
which is a death sentence for fiction.

So maybe what you have to do is learn the rules so thoroughly that you can carry them out, or not carry them out, automatically, w/o thinking about them while you're writing.