As we've said already, punctuation and spelling are a whole different ball game. There you certainly do have rules, and its/it's is a classic example. I can see the point you're making and you're right, we as writers do work within certain fixed and shared uderstandings - those of the language we speak, whether it's understanding that a certain word has such and such a meaning, or that a full stop indicates the end of a sentence, or whatever.

But we don't all share the same perception of the stylistic rules you listed. I've taken some trouble to show why 'avoid adverbs' is not appropriate for me, nor for the majority of published writers - go open any fiction book at random. You do have to indicate elision with an apostrophe: you don't have to eschew a construction like 'said Barker thoughtfully'. And if you go round thinking that certain areas of language are out of bounds, then that's going to restrict your development as a writer, in my opinion.

But, what do you do when you are a beginner? How do you learn anything without guidance?

I never ever said we didn't have to learn. My assertion is that reading widely and looking into yourself and writing till your fingers hurt is much better than looking for a ten top tips kind of short cut. If you read widely you'll see that, for example, adverbs can be used to qualify verbs etc etc with wonderful results.



<Added>

Cross-posted with Emma!

<Added>

"But Im not sure it is entirely right to say that guidance stultifies all the time."

- I certainly never said that, or indeed anything like it.

aaagh!


Did I say this was what I thought existed?...

a ten top tips kind of short cut.

of course it doesn't!!

I think we will have to agree that we maybe see things differently... but one thing we do agree on is that no ten top tips are ever, ever going to make a writer... I will say that as loud as I can!

vanessa

Oh, good.

I must confess, I'm not sure what you're saying here, because at least some of the rules you listed did seem to be those kind of "writers' tips".

Think I may have lost the thread of this argument!

In an earlier post Lammi made the distinction between individualised feedback and generalised guidelines or whatever and I think this is the key.

Personally I think that the former is essential for a writer to progress but this doesn't have to necessarily have to come from agents, publishers or even other writers. Honest feedback from readers can be immensely instructive in measuring the impact your writing is having on the reader. But, for me, the generalised stuff can be restrictive. For example, maybe a writer's problem is that she doesn't use enough adverbs or adjectives. The idea is to use the right proportion in the right place and just because the majority of writers overuse them doesn't mean that this particular writer does.



<Added>

sorry for the messy sentence in the middle.

Every time I see a list of writing rules I feel tempted to break them, not to be contrary but just for the interesting challenge of making it work anyway...
Even the seemingly common-sense rules, even the grammar and spelling ones.
Think how many of those rules Samuel Beckett broke, or Jack Kerouac, or Elfrida Jelinek, or even Cormac MacCarthy or Mervyn Peake or Lemony Snicket (adverbs!). And I'm sure Shakespeare trashed a few rules - he doesn't stick to Greek dramatic conventions, does he?
I'm not sure I've learnt much from general guidelines - I have learned a lot from reading widely, reading and editing my own work, reading and critiquing that of others, and reading books on the structure of stories, like "The Seven Basic Plots", for example.
I guess everyone learns differently.

I totally agree Leila - and you know the fankle I've got myself in before about this rule business!!

I was in the Banana Bookshop this morning and picked up a Doris Lessing book. Having never read any of her work before I was interested in what made her so good she was in the running for the Booker Prize for best writer in the World.

The book I found was Ben, in the World - unfortunately a sequel but what the hell. Sitting in the car waiting for the kids to come out of school I read page 1.

It starts with dialogue - seemingly a no, no.

A question is asked and then answered. An enormous paragraph of description then follows describing the main character in detail as he assumes he is seen by the person behind the counter - from what I'm aware this is another major break of rules. Then the dialogue continues - from what I've been told you can't do that because they wouldn't stand for that length of time just staring at each other whilst these thoughts go on.

The POV briefly switches so we have the thoughts of the person behind the counter who is looking at the main character just for a sentence or two - major mistake.

Okay - so in about 200 words - the first 200 !! - we have several pretty solid "rules" broken, and this from a writer nominated for the title of best in the world.

I think that's about enough said about "The Rules".

I can't do any more than say it as clearly as I can.

The writers you quioted above are brilliant, experienced authors. I guess that you are also writers who have been writing for a while, and have a good track record.


I still think that there are fundamentals that help beginners to write well BEFOPRE they can start kicking about.

Jesus. I am reading through the submissions to the Cadenza competition. Some of them are just plain dreadful...
and I bet that the poor people who believe those pieces are good enough to win a competition have never listened to any advice, from anyone!

All I was attempting to start, in posing the question at the beginning, was a debate about how long people thought it was in general before you could start ignoring the basics.

I will stand aside, if you don't mind, as I think it is dreadful (underlined) to lead beginner writers to think that they will just somehow write brilliant prose without learning from other writers who are generous enough to admit that

THEY TOO LEARNED TO WRITE AND WERE NOT BORN GENIUSES.

Vanessa

All I was attempting to start, in posing the question at the beginning, was a debate about how long people thought it was in general before you could start ignoring the basics.

- Well, you tell us what you mean by "the basics". Because the list you quoted was a strange mix of...(see earlier post).

I still think that there are fundamentals that help beginners to write well BEFOPRE they can start kicking about.

- Tell us what they are, then. It would be really really useful to see them. I'm imagining stuff like, 'Decide who's telling the story, and keep it consistent, unless you're after a special effect'. Then you can do exercises like writing the same story from a different pov, and compare and contrast the effects. That's sound advice. The stuff I object to is the Chiense whisper business where suddenly you're "not supposed to write in the First Person because editors don't like it". Eh? And I've seen that do the rounds several times. The specific instructions re adverbs, dialogue tags, opening with dialogue, plus others you didn't list but seem embroidered into forum lore such avoiding verb phrases (effectively those -ing' words Casey was concerned about), avoiding the verb to be, avoiding infinitves etc etc, cannot be applied like a coating of Artex to all writing (or even all literary writing). Think about it. All the different styles there are out there, all the different voices. How could you possibly have one single sum-up approach to adverbs (other than 'don't over-use them' - but you shouldn't be "over-using" anything, should you? By definition).

and I bet that the poor people who believe those pieces are good enough to win a competition have never listened to any advice, from anyone!

- Then they jolly well should. They should be sharing with trusted readers, going on courses, joining this forum, reading lots and lots. No one's advocating beginners shouldn't get advice. It's the nature of that advice which is worrying me.

I will stand aside, if you don't mind, as I think it is dreadful (underlined) to lead beginner writers to think that they will just somehow write brilliant prose without learning from other writers who are generous enough to admit that

THEY TOO LEARNED TO WRITE AND WERE NOT BORN GENIUSES.

- This directed at me, Vanessa? I've been trying my best to answer a question asked, I thought, in all good faith. You know, it would be so easy for me to say, no, I was taught to write by X, or I read such and such a craft book and suddenly everything clicked. But I'd be lying, and why would I want to do that? I've never deviated from the truth of how I came to be a writer, which was that I read and studied fiction for more or less the whole of my (11+) life. It took me several years to find my voice, but I did that through writing and reading and feeling my way, a largely relaxed and enjoyable journey.

And let's end by clarifying: I never said at any point here (or anywhere else for that matter) that beginner writers are likey to 'just write brilliant prose straight off'. But I think it's dreadful that some beginners are trying to rely on a set of bolt-on stylistic guidelines instead of listening to and developing their own instincts, which is such a crucial part of becoming a writer.

<Added>

Maybe we're talking at cross-purposes? I've had a think and gone back to your original question, but it's very vague, sort of 'How long is a piece of unspecified material?' Can you define your terms a bit more clearly? How about you post the kind of thing (though not the actual stories, obviously) that's ticking you off about some of the Cadenza entries? That would be useful.

I was just trying to point out that there actually are no rules.

I have had a very bad experience with rulebooks. When I started writing, forever ago, I wrote for pleasure only and my writing flowed out just as it came into my head. I have always read a huge amount and based what I wrote on what I read.

Then I decided to take it more seriously and was told that I had to follow the rules. I had no idea there were books around that told you how to do it properly and began collecting them. I read them from cover to cover, sticking exactly to the way these books told me was right to do it. It was an utter disaster. I lost my natural flow and the writing became stilted and horrible. So I read more and more of them, becoming obsessive, trying to get back to where I was before.

It was only when I made a concious decision to use my ear instead of my head. To listen to the words on the page regardless of how they were put down and to trust to my own instinct as a reader that it began to slot into place.

The stuff I had written in the beginning wasn't nearly as bad as the writing I did following the rules.

I think, what you need is time, developing what you think is right and read, read, read. If you read enough you become aware of the ebb and flow of the words.

To my mind there is no need for any rules at all you just need to read what other people have done and gague your own reaction to it - that worked, why? That didn't - why?

It also helps you develop your inner critic to a point where you can trust that you have done it right which just doesn't happen if you are doing a painting by numbers version of a novel.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004271.html

Interesting comment here about where some of these received stylistic no-go areas might have come from.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004271.html

And some arguments for the other side. Because I'm sure we'd all much rather write, “Her gaze penetrated his many facades and melted his senses” than “She looked at him sexily”, ahem.

<Added>

Whoops, wrong link. See below.

http://filbertpublishing.com/Adverbs.html

[quoteSo if you write, “He walked quickly,” just write, “He ran,” and you’ve just created a stronger sentence.

“She spoke softly,” can be turned into “She whispered.”

“She looked at him sexily,” can be transformed into, “Her gaze penetrated his many facades and melted his senses.”[/quote]

Someone tell me this is a joke.

<Added>

oh sod it, no quote boxes

I'm sorry guys, I'm just so depressed with this thread, and wish to goodness I'd never started it.

I am not 'aiming' anything at anyone. I thought it would be a good thing to talk about how we all learned to write... and made the assumption that most of us here who are published... some a lot lot more than me... went through a stage of learning stuff to do with the craft of writing, which, like learning to drive a car, we assimilated, and then began to do it our own way.

(sorry, here I lose it... I was told off for referring to 'rules'... and OK, softened it to'advice and 'guidelines'... but whatever the terminology is it means the same.)


I was asked to give a 'list' and off the top of my head, did so. I was told off for that too. The list was 'wrong'! People attacked the list instead of carrying on the debate. I began to feel that this was more about politics (with a small p) than about a writing debate.


Of course people here have been on courses. Of course they've learned craft. People have had individual mentors. They've been to retreats. They've attended workshops.

Maybe there are some who have never done that and have been successful in the market because their skills were such that they didnt need to learn in other ways. (This last category I would love to meet...)

Maybe I could just sign off with a simple statement.

I have always 'written'... journalism, bits and bobs. I wrote what I figured was fiction, too. Then I started learning what could make my work better. It wasn't easy, believe me. As I said before, when I found out that my work wasn't good, I froze. I had no idea how to make it better. Then I learned how to make it better.

I hope I never stop learning how to make my writing better... and maybe one of those steps will involve breaking a few rules.

Thanks for the discussion.

vanessa

I thought what came out of the discussion was very interesting, actually. Certainly I wasn't aware of anyone "telling anyone off" (except for that bit in capitals). Intrigued to know in what sense you see the thread as political, Vanessa?