Do readers care about the rules as much as we do?

I believe readers absolutely do care about the rules. The majority of people know that Brown's prose or Meyer's thesaurus-rape is laughable but they enjoy the stories. Fair enough.

But when it comes to show-don't-tell and the like, as I said, readers care. They might not know what to call it, but they absolutely know that something is wrong. Even if they don't analyse to death the rules of grammar, they still close the book and think, "Hmm. It was okay, but something didn't sit well with me."

What SP said.

To elaborate a little - story does beat everything but the rules and guidelines exist for a reason. They're the building blocks of good writing. Notice I didn't say good story. A great story can overcome so-so writing but just about all readers will still pick up on something not quite right with the book even if, as SP says, they don't know what to call it.

Good writers learn the rules and know when (and why) they can break them. Bad writers just break them without having learned them.

The thing is, readers (who aren't also writers) know two things about a given book, or whatever portion of it they read. Either: 1) they liked it, or 2) they didn't like it. Some might be able to tell you it was boring/exciting, it had characters that were interesting/dull, and other basic reactions.

What they can't tell you, because they haven't studied it the way that writers have, is WHY it was boring/exciting, WHY the characters seemed interesting/dull, etc. They may not be able to explain that an excess of adverbs made the story feel unpersuasive, but they'll be unpersuaded. They may not be able to explain that the book was full of cliches, but they'll feel that the book was stale. They may not be able to explain that there was rampant headhopping, but they'll feel the consequent distance from characters.

Readers are great. Readers are who we write for. But they're not the ones who can tell us how to make our stories better; other writers with analytical skills, who know the rules/techniques/tools and can explain how to use them, are the ones that can help there. The rules, to the extent that they're properly understood, are distilled advice that will help make the story a better experience for readers.

Jenny Crusie said somewhere -- and she may have quoted someone else -- that analysis of storytelling is a bit like dissecting a kitty. The vet needs to do that at some point in her career, in order to be a good vet. But the cat owner doesn't want to do it, and doesn't want to hear about it. The cat owner just wants a healthy kitty. In the same way, writers need to dissect the work, to understand where its organs are and how they work, but it's not the sort of thing that a non-writing reader is going to want to watch or understand, and there's no reason why the reader should.

scarletpeaches said:

I believe readers absolutely do care about the rules. The majority of people know that Brown's prose or Meyer's thesaurus-rape is laughable but they enjoy the stories. Fair enough.

But when it comes to show-don't-tell and the like, as I said, readers care. They might not know what to call it, but they absolutely know that something is wrong. Even if they don't analyse to death the rules of grammar, they still close the book and think, "Hmm. It was okay, but something didn't sit well with me."

Click to expand...

Before I started writing, before I knew anything about the prologue/chapter one debate, outliners and non-outliners, exclamation points, adverb abuse, purple prose, sentence fragments, dream sequences blahblahblah...

...I still knew when a book was well written and when it was painful to read; when the words flowed by a writer who knew all the hallmarks of amateurishness and how to avoid them, all the pitfalls of bad writing and how to use them to their best effect (even if the story was as interesting as wet cardboard, the writing was still engaging) and those writers who were just flicking their keyboard at the page in the hopes that something readable splattered out.

Sometimes that splatter produced an enjoyable story but having to struggle through the things they misused or abused would sometimes simply make me put the book down. I could never put a finger on why until I started writing and until I started studying the art of writing.

So any generalization used of 'well, readers don't care about that' (implication that ALL READERS EVERYWHERE) I find particularly irksome because I did care, even before I knew better.

And I can't be alone in this. Just because we may not be vocal (maybe we'd just rather put the book down and not say anything, moving on to the next book), doesn't mean we're not out there.

JanDarby said:

The rules, to the extent that they're properly understood, are distilled advice that will help make the story a better experience for readers.

Click to expand...

I had to edit to add this because, wow. That sums it up right there. If that's what we as writers are aiming for, then it behooves us to know what the hell we are doing.

^ Ah. So what you're really asking is, "How'd these folks get so famous?"

Not one person out of seven billion can answer that one, I'm afraid.

(If I'm wrong about that, PM me ASAP!)

Kado said:

I should clarify, for the record, I like the rules...most of em'.

Click to expand...

I'm going to pick on this.

What rules are you talking about?

I'm only half-sarcastic about this. I think the first thing writers need to understand is that there are no rules. There are guidelines, there are opinions that are held by a majority that say 'yeah, not a good idea do to this'.

But no one really says, 'never, under any circumstances ever, ever, EVER do this'.

There are three rules for writing the novel. Unfortunately, no one knows what they are. W. Somerset Maugham

Click to expand...

Kado said:

I believe that Meyer's writing got worse as she went on (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't read the books) yet that didn't stop her fans from continuing to invest in her books. Therefore, why do we worry about a trivial thing like the use of adverbs?

Click to expand...

I'm amazed that a writer would refer to any aspect of the craft as 'trivial'.

Yes, Meyer, Brown et al sell in their droves. My sales are minuscule by comparison, but I don't write for fans of Meyer and Brown and the like.

My first reader is myself, and I want to read prose by a writer who's dedicated to constant improvement. It might sound pretentious, but I couldn't look myself in the face (heh) if I just banged out any old thing I wasn't proud of. I know the rules and I can point to places in Twilight and DVC where the rules have been not just broken, but put through a mincer. Why would I then reason, "They got away with it, so I can too?"

I'll quote an Oprah-ism here: Now that you know better, do better.

Meyer did the best she could, and she writes for a certain group of people. Those are not the people I write for. Her books sell in their millions, but they are not novels I would ever want to put my name to.

I adhere to the rules (unless I break them for effect with, for example, sentence fragments) because I understand why they're there.

Most of the time, adherence to the rules clarifies your prose. Most of the time, ignoring the rules muddies the waters.

I once heard a story about a guy who was schizophrenic and ended up shooting himself in the head. Amazingly, he survived. More amazingly, he had shot right through the part of his brain that had 'stored' his illness, and was cured.

I would no more recommend shooting yourself in the head to get rid of a mental disease, than I would advocate breaking the rules in the hopes of being the next Dan Brown, Stephenie Meyer or Nicholas Sparks.

Don't put two and two together and get twelve.

Folk bought JKR 's books because she was a great storyteller.

Folk buy books because they like the stories.

Anyone can get away with picking their nose while lecturing if they pick it at a carefully selected time and place.

Pick it all the time and folk will walk away.

That's why we tell our children not to pick their noses in public. It's not a rule -it's advice based upon experience.

They either listen or not.

Kado said:

I hear what you're all saying about the readers picking up on something 'not being quite right'. The point is, that doesn't stop them from going out and happily buying more of the same (esp in a series), or from becoming obsessed with the story to the point of dressing up as their favourite character.

I believe that Meyer's writing got worse as she went on (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't read the books) yet that didn't stop her fans from continuing to invest in her books If you haven't read the books -don't comment.. Therefore, why do we worry about a trivial thing like the use of adverbs?

Click to expand...

Kado said:

I should clarify, for the record, I like the rules...most of em'. Some I think are too hardline, but most I adhere to. I'm just genuinely puzzled as to the huge success of these authors in light of all the rules/guidelines I've been reading about.

Click to expand...

The point is to write the best story you can, as well as you possibly can. At least it is for me.

The weaknesses in the writing of bestsellers is not what makes them bestsellers. Of the two examples you gave (Meyers, Rowling) both caught the imaginations of young readers (middle grade and YA) through vibrant settings and memorable characters. That the prose (especially Meyer's) was often weak is beside the point.

Here's one more rule: you can write anything you want, provided you can make it work.

Fiction is wide open. There are so many counter-examples to the rules that, truly, it's best to not focus on them -- unless something is not working. If you have new ideas, try them, and if they work, keep them. Readers love surprises but hate gimmicks. Everything can work just like everything can fail.

Write whatever you want and be totally free about it. Then edit your work with the reader in mind and be totally merciless about it. If something sticks in your craw, pull out a rule and see if it fixes the problem. View rules as editing tools to solve problems and you control them, not vice versa. Syntax was made for man, not man for syntax, so to speak.

Write like a lunatic, edit like a tyrant. My two cents.

Trade up, trade up, trade up. Look at writers you admire. Emulate them.

I don't think anyone aspires to write like Meyer, Brown, Rowling, Sparks or Steel. They might want their success, their sales, but to imitate their prose style? No.

I think readers do care about the rules and it is those readers that you want to appeal to. My logic is, don't worry about readers who could care less. Always strive to make your writing the best quality it can possibly be, regardless of what other attrocities somehow manage to get published.

______________
My Blog

I guess my question is: why not write the best you can? Are we writing to just get it over with, or are we writing because we love the art and love crafting the best stories we can tell? Yes I definitely write for an audience in mind, but I am my harshest critic. In fact my last round of edits I was far more hard on myself than my editor was. Why? Because whatever I put out into the world I want it to be the best that I could do in that moment of time.

Besides, the more work and thought you put into the product, the more satisfied you feel upon completing it.

Kado said:

I read on a blog (a former editor's I think) that we should try not to use adjectives, for crying out loud. That is taking it too far. And that's coming from someone in the industry.

Click to expand...

There's absolutely nothing wrong with this advice.

Try not to =/= never, ever ever.

The reason for this rule/advice/guideline is simple: too many writers overdo it. If you try to squeeze all adjectives out of your manuscript until its pips squeak, that means the ones left behind are likely essential to the story.

And yes writers do care about the "rules", just as everyone else explained. They might not know why something isn't working, but they know when they read something they didn't think it felt right.

Anyway, it's up to you. You clearly are getting exhausted by all the "rules" people are tossing at you and you don't want it to take away from the joy of writing. I'm a huge rule breaker myself. But the thing is, I know what the "rules" are first, before I break them.

Btw, getting rid of adverbs especially in dialogue tags was probably the thing that made my books read the most professional. I didn't understand why it mattered so much at first, but after I started doing it I was shocked how much better my prose was, crisper, and more like a "real book".

No, not really. Readers care about story, about characters. Everything else doesn't matter as long as it doesn't get in the way of those two things. Readers just don't care about the mechanics the way writers do -- unless it is glaringly awful.

Even I don't care about anything but those two things when I'm reading a book. Writing, sure, then I go crazy trying to get things right, but as a reader? I just want a good story and characters I can care about, so as long as the grammar is passable, as long as there aren't glaring typos, I'm happy.

I haven't read Meyer so I can't comment on that, but I read Brown and I saw nothing wrong with the writing because I was immersed in the action.

scarletpeaches said:

Try not to =/= never, ever ever.

The reason for this rule/advice/guideline is simple: too many writers overdo it. If you try to squeeze all adjectives out of your manuscript until its pips squeak, that means the ones left behind are likely essential to the story.

Click to expand...

QFT

Don't look at things as absolutes. These aren't really rules. Hence my use of quotation marks each time I've mentioned them. They are precisely what SP says, guidelines that evolved when authors began to overuse certain things. The "rules" didn't magically appear on their own. They evolved over the years. The end game is to write something pleasing for readers.

And hey, if you want to use Brown or Meyers as your model of good writing because they are successful, go for it. Personally, I strive to write the best I can. And yes, it can get frustrating, but who said writing was meant to be all easy all the time?

Kado said:

I hear what you're all saying about the readers picking up on something 'not being quite right'. The point is, that doesn't stop them from going out and happily buying more of the same (esp in a series), or from becoming obsessed with the story to the point of dressing up as their favourite character.

I believe that Meyer's writing got worse as she went on (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't read the books) yet that didn't stop her fans from continuing to invest in her books. Therefore, why do we worry about a trivial thing like the use of adverbs?

I should clarify, for the record, I like the rules...most of em'. Some I think are too hardline, but most I adhere to. I'm just genuinely puzzled as to the huge success of these authors in light of all the rules/guidelines I've been reading about.

Click to expand...

1. Story can trump mechanics. So a story written poorly in some aspects may either be so compelling or novel, or do certain other things so well, that these make up for the flaws. On the flip side, I doubt that means the story is BETTER for the shitty mechanics (if Dan Brown could keep the same pace and do so without a complete mary-sue protag and laughable sentences I don't think his sales would go down any for the newfound competency, for example), so the fact someone does something "poorly" isn't an excuse to do the same--any given story written poorly would probably do better written well, despite the fact some poorly written stuff has done pretty damn well.

2. A lot of the time a casual reader won't say "there are far too many adverbial tags in here" even though they may notice one book seems more shrill or desperate than another, and this may make the book less enjoyable and diminish the likelihood of them reading another by the same writer, if presented with an alternative. The flaws may pull them out of the book on some slight level even if they choose to go back, or they can't quite put their finger on what strikes them as "off". Never pull your reader back from the story if you can help it.

3. Note in the case of Rowling (who more than made up for her issues with her storytelling) and Meyers (who did not) there weren't many alternatives at the time--sure, now the world is teeming with whiny, sulky forever-teen vampires, but at the time Meyers was the one who hit it big, and everyone knew of....likewise with Potter, there are lots of knock-offs and similar stories now, but at the time there were far fewer, and they were by comparative unknowns. Casual readers do buy "brands".

4. Bear in mind things a casual reader doesn't pick up on, or cannot actually identify, an agent and/or editor probably can, and if may be an extra, unneeded hurdle when you're trying to sell.



Some bad stuff will always manage to sell. Always. But as a writer, you get to control your product, and by fixing everything you can, you only stand to up your odds of success. That doesn't mean edit your work into sterility, but it makes no sense to excuse bad habits because other people got away with them--yes, some have, but can you say any of those stories were actually improved for the tics and flaws? Strive for the top, instead of embracing the bottom and counting on the same luck some lesser writers were able to capitalize on.

Kado said:

Where do I begin? I'd never heard of so many rules before I started researching the internet. I'd read Strunk and White, King's On Writing and Orwell's Why I Write and that was it. I thought those three books pretty much had it covered.

Click to expand...

Yeah. The wealth of information out there can be staggering and confusing, especially when you sit down and try to compile a list of all the things the big kids say about what to do and not do while on the playground.

It was a hard thing for me to come to realization that those 'rules' worked for them. And, surprisingly, they worked for many. But not everyone.

If I tried to write according to what Stephen King said in his On Writing, I would never get anywhere. I'd still be dithering and stuck and having no clue why what I was doing wasn't working. After all, it worked for SK, right? And he's the picture of successful writer!

Works for him, doesn't work for me no matter how hard I tried. Have had to find my own way and, like you, wading through an awful lot of opinions until I found what worked for me.

I keep things in mind but, in the end, stay true to the story. Because there is one rule that I came across that I do believe should hold true.

Don't bore your reader.

Click to expand...

I do the best I can to avoid that, with all the tools at my disposal.

It's as wrong to talk about readers as though they're all the same as it is to talk about writers as though they're all the same.

Different readers care about different things.

Shadow_Ferret said:

I read Brown and I saw nothing wrong with the writing because I was immersed in the action.

Click to expand...

Just goes to show how people react differently. I was thrown right out of DVC by the first two words.