It's taken me this long to recover from the the thought that these 'rules' are being engraved on the minds of new writers out there. Apart from anything else, the fact that something's technically difficult is a rotten reason for telling people not to do it.

Lammi, thank you for showing so very clearly why most of these are bunk.

I think it's the quick-fix merchants who peddle this stuff. Reducing the creative process to a Power-point presentation is easier for bad and/or unconfident writing teachers, and more readily accepted by wannabe writers, than what they should be saying. Which is, of course, 'Go away and read 200 of the kind of book you want to write. Then write yours. Then come back to me when you can't make your book work, and I'll help you work out why you can't, and what to do about.

Emma

<Added>

I also don't think university education has much to do with it - some of the most unconfident creative writers I know are English graduates - though a bookish, reading background does perhaps help. But bookishness isn't something confined to any one section of society.

I don't actually know that these rules ARE being forced down people's throats, are they? A lot of Nessie's 'rules' are, I'd have said, good advice - and as Lammi points out, common sense. I do think, though, that they probably help people who may not be natural writers write a bit more competently than they may otherwise do. If you're a natural writer then you will soon learn what 'rules' you, personally think are worth following and which are not. Personally there are some rules I always try to follow.
1) Always start as near to the end as possible.
2) Always make the last paragraph you write your first.

1) won't appeal to novelists but I think a good short story needs to get going right away without the preamble. Or, as someone said GET IN, GET ON AND GET OUT.
(Think that was Ray Bradbury)

Actually, I'd say 1 applies to all writing, even non-fiction, because all it really means is Make sure all you include in your text is necessary, is carrying its weight, is not there for padding.

But as you say, it's not a rule it's just common sense.

I tend to agree with the notion that some people are naturally gifted and others of us have to work at it and genuinely find these 'rules' a good starting point, despite their inhibiting effect.

Casey

But what about this example, Casey:

http://www.writewords.org.uk/groups/102_138478.asp?spage=2

where your instinct, your true writer's ear, was telling you to use the -ing phrase, but your concern not to break a 'rule' was making you doubt yourself? You might have ended up writing something that didn't really do the job simply to avoid conflicting with this sldgehammer-to-crack-a-nut guideline.

<Added>

It's the post beginning:

Re: Yikes... Casey at 10:48 on 18 April 2007



Another rule that i try and follow (must break it)

He walked into the lounge,kicking aside the dog's ball.

'should' be

He walked into the lounge and kicked aside the dog's ball

because it is stronger writing.

This is a very interesting discussion. Someone said something about the sense of freedom in fiction writing and I really agree with that. I feel that there are fewer rules in fiction writing than in any other kind of writing.

For example you can break grammar rules if you like (as long as you're doing it deliberately to achieve a certain effect), something which is unacceptable is other kinds of writing.
Personally I think that most good writers have a very good handle on grammar rules even if it's instinctive and if they can't put a name on the various grammatical parts. So on this point I agree that you need to know these grammar rules in order to be able to break them.

As for stylistic rules, I think that there is a trend lately towards pared-back, spare, simple prose which might be the reason why these 'rules' seem to encourage writers to cut out all of the fancy stuff. But do we want everyone to write the same way?

I haven't done any courses on CW apart from a couple of workshops and an evening class so I'm not sure what I think of MAs and other CW qualifications. On the one hand, when I talk about writing to other people on courses or even on these forums I occasionally get a flash of an insight into my own writing and what I should do (a bit like catching a glimpse of yourself in a mirror as you walk down a street and, for a second, seeing yourself as a stranger might) I don't think I would have had those insights if I never talked about writing and so I wonder if it could be beneficial to immerse myself for a whole year in the world of writing with other like-minded people.
On the other hand, I get the impression that MAs are to writing what the classic, conservatoire training is to musicians, great if you are a literary writer/ classical musician but could actually be detrimental to other kinds of writers/musicians. Of course this is only the impression of an outsider so I am perfectly willing to listen to other arguments on this.

On the one hand, when I talk about writing to other people on courses or even on these forums I occasionally get a flash of an insight into my own writing and what I should do (a bit like catching a glimpse of yourself in a mirror as you walk down a street and, for a second, seeing yourself as a stranger might) I don't think I would have had those insights if I never talked about writing

I'm so with you there, ashlinn.

I get the impression that MAs are to writing what the classic, conservatoire training is to musicians, great if you are a literary writer/ classical musician but could actually be detrimental to other kinds of writers/musicians.

The MA/ postgrad root is often disparaged for literary writers. More and more people are doing them, but the criticism is they churn out samey-type, formulaic, banal writing. I actually believe, however, it depends on the writer. For example Donna Tart, Jonathan Safran Foer, in the American school have MFA's - but have retained their sense of individuality.

Juliet

{quote]I don't actually know that these rules ARE being forced down people's throats, are they? A lot of Nessie's 'rules' are, I'd have said, good advice - and as Lammi points out, common sense. I do think, though, that they probably help people who may not be natural writers write a bit more competently than they may otherwise do.[/quote]

I wasn't aware that anyone was saying that these snippets of advice were being forced on writers, at all. And I do not think that the advice within some of those things listed is entirely 'bunk'. Read any good craft book, and most of the things listed will be covered somewhere, won't they? You can agree with them , or disagree with them... and in a way, that doesn't matter... what matters is that you are aware of the possibilities.

Often, advice, guidelines, observations (call them what you will) are useful jumping off points for discussion, debate... without whihc how do new writers begin to understand that their own view of writing may be narrow. That the world of writing is far far wider that they ever dreamed.

Yes, once you've learned to write, the things above are 'common sense'. But not every new writer knows that when they start.



Vanessa

<Added>

aaagh.


sorry. I meant to say that the quote above was a good one... and that I agreed with it. That people who may not be easy natural writers are helped to improve hugely by learning some craft points, that's all!


Vanessa

1) Always start as near to the end as possible.

As I see it, this simply means start at the plot and don't bother setting out the family history of your main characters in numerous chapters beforehand.

<Added>

As for university, the last thing they bothered to teach was how to write.
Of course, I did science, and there's not much need for adverbs or metaphors in lab reports.

<Added>

....even if they were creative writing ;)

I entirely agree with you, Vanessa, about the debate - and that's what writers need and benefit from, and what a good craft book will look at. But The Rules are the antithesis of debate, a one-size-fits-all approach that takes no account of personal style, or the music of a passage, or the demands of the scene or moment.

So it is bunk to say, 'Don't use adverbs to qualify speech', or 'Aim to cut all speech tags' or 'Avoid synonyms for said'. It might make a new writer feel more confident, but in the long run it might also prevent them from developing their ear and their sense of language exploration and their general confidence.

Maybe my terminology was off, Lammi.

The word 'rule' is very inflexible. Maybe 'advice' and 'guideline' are closer to what I mean?

Exploration is vital, I believe. So, isn't part of the exploration process for a new writer trying out the guidelines that they may not have heard of, seeing if they improve the work, and taking them on board, if so?

And reading as well, not only to enjoy... but also to see whether successful writers of your chosen genre apply the things you are learning about?

The thread has been interesting. I started it because, on another site, I was watching a thread in which a few very young, idealistic writers were bewailing the fact that they'd posted work for critique that was receiving negative feedback.

'No one understands my writing' they were saying. "People are so stupid. This is a brand new way of writing, and they are too stupid to see how clever it is..."


Now it is entirely possible that it was genius at work, and that the reviewers were all stupid, indeed.

But, I figured, it was more likely that these writers were not following enough guidelines... (or... 'rules' and the result was, what they produced was seen as utter rubbish.


I remember it well. I remember inventing a way of telling a story that no one had ever done before.

And why hadn't it been invented?

Because it simply didn't work. (!) I was more interested in 'being clever' than taking a few simple bits of good advice on board.

vanessa

But as you say, that's not the same as following rules, is it? Individual tailored advice is what every writer has to work with at some point - it's what I get from my editor and agent, and respond to appropriately.

And broad advice is useful, yes. But not these little language tics, the avoid this and don't use that that means some new writers can end up looking over their shoulder rather than into their own hearts.

[quote]Individual tailored advice is what every writer has to work with at some point - it's what I get from my editor and agent, and respond to appropriately.[/quote

Of course...but it takes a little hard work, and a lot of perseverence to get to the stage where you have agents, publishers, doesn't it? Then, it must be wonderful to have the close attention and help of people who know you and your work well, and who are all working with you to help make it as good as it can get.

But, what do you do when you are a beginner? How do you learn anything without guidance? Whether it is from reading widely and interpreting what you read... or attending courses at colleges and universities, whether it is studying with other writers, belonging to writers grous such as this one...finding mentors, going on workshops...

Do writers and prospective writers go to all those places looking not to get any help at all?

Sure... nitty bits about grammar are just something we pick up. But unless someone points out that 'its' is not the same as 'it's'... no matter how hear we look into our hearts, we will still get that little thing wrong.

I use that as a facile example. But Im not sure it is entirely right to say that guidance stultifies all the time.

Yes, I hold my hand up and say that I was frozen for a while once I realised I was not writing as well as I thought,...as pointed out by many different critquers, in many different places.

But, once that had 'sunk in', my writing became far better. And without that advice, I'd still be writing relatively poorly.

I think my terminology at the start of this thread was lazy, and I didn't intend to indicate that there were fixed 'rules' set in concrete, which, if ignored, would render writers dreadful!... but I do think that I have learned a lot over the last few years from taking on board certain guidelines..., and that my writing has improved as a result.

vanessa

I didn't intend to indicate that there were fixed 'rules' set in concrete, which, if ignored, would render writers dreadful!...

I didn't think you did! But there is a frightening number of wannabe-writers and teachers of writing who do, either explicitly or implicitly.

Making guidelines and good ideas look too solid makes them appear to be reassuring and reliable for new writers. But in fact it's the opposite, because of course all the time they're reading good writers who 'break' them all. I have, on WW, seen people who've absorbed the ridiculous 'stick to one PoV' rule, then saying plaintively, 'So is X not a good writer then? Because her/his PoV is all over the place.'

I don't think you should use a guideline unless you know why it exists, and as soon as if you understand it, you know you'll know when and when not to use it.

That means the problem melts away, because there is no longer a set of things you 'should' let alone 'must' do, there are no guidelines, just an array of possibilities, from which you make an informed choice.

Emma