yeah, i'd say a writer needs both. no one said you had to follow all the 'rules' all the time. the strong advocacy here is to know the 'rules' and when you deliberately break them there may or may not be consequences. the 'rule' camp, as far as i recall, never said never. the 'no rules' camp, in part, seems to advocate not even bothering to learn them.
'Actually, you ask a successful writer to fix something up, he doesn't go through it applying rules and taping measures. He skims through, rewording the way he would if he wrote it. It's not some scientific or legal process. It's all by the seat of the pants. Really. Honest. Seriously.' ~ jeez, j, two daze in a row? you're batting a .1000 in my book (<-- now that's good writing, folks). indeed, it is a kind of 'scientific' process, it's just one that writer has developed over years of practice, trial and error, and, indeed, knowing the rules. they just make it look easy. this whole paragraph is simply flawed from beginning to end. it's saying any professional writer merely has to skim any old piece of junk and due to some innate gift (and certainly by not sticking to any 'rules') can instantly and magickally transform lead into gold. bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. some writers can bang out a first draft very close to what the final version will be and sell it, while some won't even think about submission before they do eight drafts. if i asked a pro do 'skim' (and if i'm paying him, he'd damn well do more than skim) my story, he'd apply his own personal science, weights and measures. and that's not to say it would make the story better or worse, either. 'by the seat of his pants' even implies this professional was virtually born with skillz and gifts few others really have, that no effort is involved, that no training was ever necessary, and that professional writers have some kind of editorial virtue beyond that of mortal man. basically, i take your words to mean 'successful' writers don't even have to try, nor have they any need, now or ever, for 'rules.' that's absolutely ridiculous, and i hope anyone with a thimbleful of common sense sees the truth of things, that most 'successful' writers have indeed worked hard at their craft, so hard at it, in fact, that they merely only make it look easy. don't believe me if you don't want to, but i'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, yes, the vast, vast majority of successful writers know the rules. and i'd add that they've practiced all the rules in some form or another to see what worked for them and what didn't ~ i'd be surprised if the majority of successful (and by the term i assume that means a professional able to more or less sustain a livelihood by writing) writers would claim they don't know the rules or that they don't follow any rules whatsoever.
if you write out of ignorance, it's bound to sound like ignorant writing. if you want to point to danielle steel and the fact that literally nearly every one of her sentences contains the word 'and,' you can justify that. in fact, try that and see how far you get. if you're not danielle steel you might not get very far. who knows. ignore the fact that most of us were in grade school or not even born yet when her career started. ignore the fact that stephen king wrote under a pen name and had miserably sales until he 'leaked' his pen name and those books sold like crazy. ignore the fact that hemingway blew his brains out, poe was a drug addict, shakespeare in his own time wasn't considered particularly genius, and... well, you get the picture. i have a hard time believing herman melville will agree with people justifying ignorance (melville being one obsessed with his own work, hardly flying by the seat of his pants).
justify being ignorant, write like no 'rules' matter at any point. use as your basic reasoning some successful writer somehow managed to do it. point to every ridiculously rich and/or genius writer you can and consider yourself on their parr. you could just very well be the next dan brown. repeat to yourself that osmosis is all the training you need. know that all editors are failed writer wannabes, and that a rejection from them means they're just jealous (nevermind it's their job to publish marketable material, because, you know, editors love to publish junk they know will lose money. by the same token, all music producers are failed rock stars, all referees are failed quarterbacks, and everyone who owns a corvette has dreams of being the first middle-aged rookie in nascar. hell, let's just say christian fundamentalists are just failed porn stars, that makes as much sense). you know how to form a coherent sentence, that's all you really need to know. really. honest. seriously.
or you can learn the 'rules' and apply the ones that makes your writing better. do as thou wilt, so mete it be.
southern, i think my comment was tongue-in-cheek, eh? still, it had a kernal of truth to it. i've read enough blogs and articles, seen enough on these kinds of boards and have corresponded with enough professional writers to know it's not a lifestyle of ease and comfort, per se. i think the greatest benefit of being a professional writer must be doing something you love and the potential for 'greatness,' whatever that may be. i'm sure if a person is prolific enough they can have a comfortable life that affords them a great many freedoms and satisfactions. just that a book or two on the bookshelves at barnes and noble doesn't guarantee a future. not being the type of person who seeks ego gratification from seeing his name in print (although it's an awesome name), i honestly prefer not to write for my life lest it become a real job in itself. were i more creative, less lazy, and more prolific, and the money was right, maybe i'd consider it (though i don't think i could ever write well with the idea i was only doing it for a paycheck).
the simple fact is that when you discard all the 'rules' appropriate to the story you're not doing the story any services.
i'm simply blown away by the fact that there's any writer here who's actually defending ignorance. as i sit here right now, i wish i were the kind of person who knew better than to debate the point. as the old saying goes, don't argue with ignorant people, they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
'Actually, you ask a successful writer to fix something up, he doesn't go through it applying rules and taping measures. He skims through, rewording the way he would if he wrote it. It's not some scientific or legal process. It's all by the seat of the pants. Really. Honest. Seriously.' ~ jeez, j, two daze in a row? you're batting a .1000 in my book (<-- now that's good writing, folks). indeed, it is a kind of 'scientific' process, it's just one that writer has developed over years of practice, trial and error, and, indeed, knowing the rules. they just make it look easy. this whole paragraph is simply flawed from beginning to end. it's saying any professional writer merely has to skim any old piece of junk and due to some innate gift (and certainly by not sticking to any 'rules') can instantly and magickally transform lead into gold. bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. some writers can bang out a first draft very close to what the final version will be and sell it, while some won't even think about submission before they do eight drafts. if i asked a pro do 'skim' (and if i'm paying him, he'd damn well do more than skim) my story, he'd apply his own personal science, weights and measures. and that's not to say it would make the story better or worse, either. 'by the seat of his pants' even implies this professional was virtually born with skillz and gifts few others really have, that no effort is involved, that no training was ever necessary, and that professional writers have some kind of editorial virtue beyond that of mortal man. basically, i take your words to mean 'successful' writers don't even have to try, nor have they any need, now or ever, for 'rules.' that's absolutely ridiculous, and i hope anyone with a thimbleful of common sense sees the truth of things, that most 'successful' writers have indeed worked hard at their craft, so hard at it, in fact, that they merely only make it look easy. don't believe me if you don't want to, but i'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, yes, the vast, vast majority of successful writers know the rules. and i'd add that they've practiced all the rules in some form or another to see what worked for them and what didn't ~ i'd be surprised if the majority of successful (and by the term i assume that means a professional able to more or less sustain a livelihood by writing) writers would claim they don't know the rules or that they don't follow any rules whatsoever.
if you write out of ignorance, it's bound to sound like ignorant writing. if you want to point to danielle steel and the fact that literally nearly every one of her sentences contains the word 'and,' you can justify that. in fact, try that and see how far you get. if you're not danielle steel you might not get very far. who knows. ignore the fact that most of us were in grade school or not even born yet when her career started. ignore the fact that stephen king wrote under a pen name and had miserably sales until he 'leaked' his pen name and those books sold like crazy. ignore the fact that hemingway blew his brains out, poe was a drug addict, shakespeare in his own time wasn't considered particularly genius, and... well, you get the picture. i have a hard time believing herman melville will agree with people justifying ignorance (melville being one obsessed with his own work, hardly flying by the seat of his pants).
justify being ignorant, write like no 'rules' matter at any point. use as your basic reasoning some successful writer somehow managed to do it. point to every ridiculously rich and/or genius writer you can and consider yourself on their parr. you could just very well be the next dan brown. repeat to yourself that osmosis is all the training you need. know that all editors are failed writer wannabes, and that a rejection from them means they're just jealous (nevermind it's their job to publish marketable material, because, you know, editors love to publish junk they know will lose money. by the same token, all music producers are failed rock stars, all referees are failed quarterbacks, and everyone who owns a corvette has dreams of being the first middle-aged rookie in nascar. hell, let's just say christian fundamentalists are just failed porn stars, that makes as much sense). you know how to form a coherent sentence, that's all you really need to know. really. honest. seriously.
or you can learn the 'rules' and apply the ones that makes your writing better. do as thou wilt, so mete it be.
southern, i think my comment was tongue-in-cheek, eh? still, it had a kernal of truth to it. i've read enough blogs and articles, seen enough on these kinds of boards and have corresponded with enough professional writers to know it's not a lifestyle of ease and comfort, per se. i think the greatest benefit of being a professional writer must be doing something you love and the potential for 'greatness,' whatever that may be. i'm sure if a person is prolific enough they can have a comfortable life that affords them a great many freedoms and satisfactions. just that a book or two on the bookshelves at barnes and noble doesn't guarantee a future. not being the type of person who seeks ego gratification from seeing his name in print (although it's an awesome name), i honestly prefer not to write for my life lest it become a real job in itself. were i more creative, less lazy, and more prolific, and the money was right, maybe i'd consider it (though i don't think i could ever write well with the idea i was only doing it for a paycheck).
the simple fact is that when you discard all the 'rules' appropriate to the story you're not doing the story any services.
i'm simply blown away by the fact that there's any writer here who's actually defending ignorance. as i sit here right now, i wish i were the kind of person who knew better than to debate the point. as the old saying goes, don't argue with ignorant people, they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
, after reading your post, the only "rule" I'd like you to try to apply is that sentences really should begin with a capital letter. <G> You seem to have a total aversion to caps. <G>
I'm one of those people who blogs about "the rules," and especially about all the times I've seen published authors break them successfully. There's Susan Minot's Evening, which I think is a movie now, starring Meryl Streep. She uses no quotation marks whatsoever. Some sentences don’t even end in periods. It’s full of passive sentences and the use of “was.” She even has the protagonist get "out" (not off) of a guy's lap, and sit "in" (not on) a chair. Not the kind of cushy chair a person can sink into, but a kitchen chair. The same word is often repeated in the same sentence or the same paragraph. The effect is ethereal. It won an award (can’t find the specific one at this moment, sorry), and got rave reviews.
