I might run a thread on this in WF, Kate - i suspect most people will agree with you and, polarised as we might seem, i am not totally opposed to your POV - i suspect a lot of it is a confidence thing - and that you have always had more confidence in your own writing than i have in mine...

Casey

Trinny and Susannah do a good job of turning people out nicely within the limits of the bodies on offer and the scope of their own taste, which is itself dictated by the possible range of current fashion.

It works - the people look better than they did - but it's a pretty narrow prescription, and I'm not sure learning to be narrow successfully is good training for becoming the best version of yourself you can be.

Emma

more liberal with adverbs

Reading through the 50 shortlisted authors on the NIAY competition, one thing that strikes me is the prevelance of adverbs, alliteration and metaphors/similies - all things we are told to avoid. However, it gives 'body' to the work - like a fine sherry, compared to a light Rose if left out. Conversly, if misused, it turns the sherry to vinegar.
My work in comparison, could be classed as grape juice

- NaomiM

alliteration and metaphors/similies

Lordy, i've never heard of that exemption before.

Casey

Oh God. [Puts head in hands.]

For what it's worth, I've been writing on and off since I was small, and I've never once worried about "rules". What I have worried about is how to tell a story and make it gripping and ... dare I say ... formally and stylistically interesting: line by line, scene by scene, sequence by sequence, making and breaking patterns - and creating a bond between writer and my ideal reader: what some people call 'voice' I suppose ... although that changes from piece to piece, and of course, not everyone likes what I write. How could they, any more than I like everything that's 'out there', on the shelves?

And writing, for me, is constant problem solving, on all sorts of levels ... from choosing a subject onwards.

So, "rules" ... no. Although sometimes I listen to what other writers say and I think 'yes, that's right' and I tweak my own work some more. And of course, I have read, and continue to read, trying to learn by example.

Sorry if this sounds pious, it's not meant to.

Jim

I think that if you have read a lot of the accepted good writers and have had a University education in the Arts then you unconsciously absorb these 'rules' 'guidelines' tools' or whatever you want to call them. If you haven't been through all that, that then that's where I think the 'rules' are a good thing because they give people confidence when they're starting off. The people on this thread who are very anti rules are well educated and may not have even thought, when they first started writing, that they had the advantage over those who maybe had a good tale to tell but didn't think they had the know-how to tell it.

alliteration and metaphors/similies Lordy, i've never heard of that exemption before.

Really?!
God, now I know where I went wrong.

Where would I be without you guys?

You know, I always tend to go with what sounds right. I mean, I only use passive voice if I absolutely have to, but people in real life use passive voice all the time. You know, if you listen to the way folk talk - passive voice-orama! Sometimes, I've found dialogue in novels stilted for that very reason - far too precise for a real human being.

JB

What do you mean by passive voice? because I've heard several completely different definitions of this (which is another reason I think writing by a set of rules is ultimately much more a hindrance than a help).

The people on this thread who are very anti rules are well educated and may not have even thought, when they first started writing, that they had the advantage over those who maybe had a good tale to tell but didn't think they had the know-how to tell it.

Jem, I know plenty of authors who don't have highly educated backgrounds. As I see it, a writer learns to develop his or her voice by thoughtful, joyful reading, and by writing lots. Classes in writing for particular markets, or discussions of technique, or writing exercises are all brilliant add-ons that a writer at any level might take advantage of. But not an inflexible imposed framework made up of 10, or 20, or 30 over-simplified restrictions on language. The latter actually ends up tying a lot of beginner writers in knots.

Lammi asked me to clarify what 'rules' I was talking about in my intial question.

Welll I guess to do that it would take a post as long as a couple of craft books!

But a few simple things, trotted out when I first went on a course,


That dialogue exchanges paint a character better than prose, so use dialogue a lot.

That passive mode deadens prose, so make it active.

That dialoague tags are in the main, intrusive. Whereas 'said' disappears. That the writer ought to aim to write tag-free dialogue.

That adverbs are to be avoided. And the action described should be shown in the prose.

The old 'show versus tell' chestnet. Together with the myriad poor explanations of what it means.

That the 'look' of the page of script is important. Too much 'solid writing' (ie long dense paragraphs) is a switch-off.

That language for the sake of language is intrusive. That language must 'fit' the character and the subject.

That point of view should not switch in a clunky manner.

That beginning a piece with dialogue is hard to do, so ought to be avoided.

That literary fiction must carry a 'theme'.

That you should not start writing unless you know your theme.

Conversely, that you should write to find out what you think.


That the work should follow the 'story arc' shape, (however long it be) with climaxes and anti-climaxes to drive the reader's interest forward.

That voice should remain constant.

That narrators voice is not the same thing as author's voice.


I could go on.


and on



and on.


See what I mean? I have seen and participated in lengthy discussions about the minutiae... and I wonder if it's like learning to drive a car, in a way?

That when you start, you are aware of every movement made by your foot on the pedals, your hand on the gear lever, your head as it moves to look in mirrors.

Then, you do these things automatically. And hopefully become a good driver.

But with writing, ... if we all did exactly what the books (and teachers) say, we'd all churn out samey stuff. (simplistic, but within genre, probably close).


So we have to break some of the rules to 'be our own writer'. And maybe, it is the order and selection of rules broken that differentiate a really creative spirit from the rest of the class?



vanessa

Ok, let's have a look at these.

Some immediately fall into the bleedin' obvious category, the 'One rule of writing well is that you should write well'. These are -

That language for the sake of language is intrusive. That language must 'fit' the character and the subject.

That point of view should not switch in a clunky manner.

That the work should follow the 'story arc' shape, (however long it be) with climaxes and anti-climaxes to drive the reader's interest forward.

That voice should remain constant.

You can't call them rules as they're just common sense. Of course the language that comes out of the character's mouth must fit the character, otherwise you're in a Harry Enfield sketch. Of course the structure's got to pull the reader forward, and nothing should be 'clunky', pov changes or anything else.

That narrators voice is not the same thing as author's voice.

- Similarly, that's an observation, not a rule.

That dialoague tags are in the main, intrusive. Whereas 'said' disappears. That the writer ought to aim to write tag-free dialogue.

That adverbs are to be avoided. And the action described should be shown in the prose.

That beginning a piece with dialogue is hard to do, so ought to be avoided.

- As they baldly stand, these are tripe. There's a twinkle of truth in all of them - 'said' is less visible than other tags; some speech tags can often be cut for smoothness; some new writers over-use adverbs; beginning with dialogue needs careful handling. But some dialogue tags and adverbs and synonyms for said are needed for music and rhythm - there's a link earlier on where I take apart a piece of mine and show why I've used them. And some of the best stories I've ever read start with dialogue.

That dialogue exchanges paint a character better than prose, so use dialogue a lot.

That the 'look' of the page of script is important. Too much 'solid writing' (ie long dense paragraphs) is a switch-off.

- I follow this for my own writing, but I'd never presume to impose it as a rule on anyone else. It's a decision that has to do with individual style, with the pace of the story, with what's come before and after.

That passive mode deadens prose, so make it active.

- This needs explaining - see post above.

The old 'show versus tell' chestnet. Together with the myriad poor explanations of what it means.

That you should not start writing unless you know your theme.

- People start to write from all kinds of prompts. No way can you dictate where to begin.

There was someone on the old BBC Get Writing site who said you shouldn't use the pluperfect tense ('he had walked, she had eaten' - do you remember that, Vanessa? The point he was making was that you could, if you weren't careful, end up with too many 'had' in a paragrah, and that could maybe sound clunky. But I know some people went, 'Oh, right, I shan't ever use that tense, then.' Which meant that if they were writing in the past tense and they had to signal a flashback, they were jiggered.

Then I read on a different forum that you were supposed to avoid the imperfect tense (some people call this the continuous past - was walking, was eating etc). Not sure where this came from - a fear of using the word 'was'? Of using a verb made from more than one word? Of words ending in 'ing'?

So I'm thinking, how exactly are you supposed to sequence any event at all in your writing?

<Added>

Particularly if you're also supposed to be avoiding adverbs (which include 'first' and 'then' and 'next' and 'yesterday'). Nightmare!

I think that if you have read a lot of the accepted good writers and have had a University education in the Arts then you unconsciously absorb these 'rules' 'guidelines' tools' or whatever you want to call them.

Well, I agree that writers can learn by reading, and not just 'accepted good writers'. You can learn from bad ones too. And in bygone days, people from poor families, like me, who had little money for books, could join the public library and inform, entertain and educate themselves. You didn't need to go to University.

Frank Norman ('Banana Boy', 'Bang to Rights', 'Fings Aint Wot They Used to Be', etc. came out of the nick (University of Crime?), went to Woolworths, bought a sixpenny exercise book and a pencil, went in a park, sat on a bench - and he was away!

Jim

Not begin with dialogue??? Blimey, I always thought you were 'supposed to' do that a lot, in modern commercial fiction!

As to Jem's point about university-educated people, well, I guess it helps with grammar and paragraphing and really really basic stuff. But equally, if you've spent years of your life wiriting in one style it can actually be really hard to shed it when you switch to fiction. I have a jornalist and copy-writer friend, now writing nocels, who is always being told by her editor ot slow down, take her time, layer in more detail, make her sentences longer - all because she's been used to producing 700 word on topic x by Tuesday, invariably pared down to its soundbite bones. My prioblem is the same but different: used to producing convoluted information-packed sentences about law, I find it very hard to lighten up and write sharply enough for anyone reading to stay awake. I imagine people with a writing background (but non-fiction) are just as likely or unlikely to get bogged down in the fiction-writing 'rules' as anyone else. In some ways it's worse. Journalists and copy writers do have 'rules', imposed by the client, or editor, and by their whole training. Lawyers are taught particular modes of argument, and we tend to write in a very stylised way, following the accepted form. So they/we might be unused to writing without rules, and need to look for a prop. A lot depends on individuals and their motivation and confidence, and how and why they begin to write fiction. I don't think you can generalise.

I also agree with Kate that the main way anyone learns how to write is by reading and reading and reading, and absorbing it all and developing an 'ear'. And that's got nothing to do with your level of formal education.

Rosy