Oh gosh Vanessa this was never an attack on you or anything you said. Merely a discussion about the subject you brought up and a very interesting and informative discussion too.

I really don't think you should regret starting this thread because it has brought a lot of opinions to the table. Certainly we are a very opinionated lot but I think that's part of why we do what we do.

In any case, those aren't 'your' rules, V, they're ones you said you heard given out at a course. Two of them contradict each other! I just thought they were up for discussion.

<Added>

And I maintain that, to get anywhere near answering the question you initially posed, we needed to agree firstly that there were some rules, and secondly what those rules might be. Otherwise how can any of us be sure we're discussing the same thing?

Vanessa, I've found this thread extremely useful, so thank you for putting it up.

I've been following 'rules/guidelines' whatever you want to call them, which says avoid alliteration and metaphors - the latter because most of them, for newbie writers like myself, turn out to be cliches.
By avoiding them I've never learnt the art of using them properly. To hear I've got it wrong is great, even if it does shake me out of my comfort zone.

- NaomiM

I'm sure no-one meant to upset anyone, I certainly didn't - was just browsing and thought I'd post my opinion as it is an interesting subject.

I am not upset at all...

Just bemused.

vanessa

That makes two of us. I'm still concerned that you think the people here are expressing views just to be 'political'.

I saw that whatever I said, it became 'wrong'.

The list was as I thought I said, a tiny tiny random off the cuff example of all the 'stuff' that is thrown at writers.

Of course, some 'stuff' will directly contradict 'other stuff'.

Example:

I remember going on a workshop on a course (Winchester Writers Conference) and being told that most good short stories begin with dialogue. I then heard the opposite from a few other teachers.

What do I do as a beginner? I go to the work produced by the first speaker, at Winchester, to see what sort of 'good short stories' she was working on herself. And in context, they were. She was earning well, published well.

then I look at the work written by the second tranche.

I as beginner, have to work out which person is giving me the right advice for the writing I want to do.

--------------------------

picking up Naomi's point. I have never heard anyone telling writers not to use alliteration or metaphor.

Cliches, yes. They don't do anyone any favours do they?

What is alliteration was needed? What if a character spoke only in certain sounds? How do you learn to write in layers without using metaphor?

so if that person was teaching me, I would understand the cliche 'rule' and endeavour to see things in a more original way. The rest, I would query.


vanessa

I saw that whatever I said, it became 'wrong'.

- No, because as we've both said, that list wasn't yours. You were just posting some random examples. Sorry, Vanessa, I'm not having you accuse me of disagreeing with you for the sake of it. I don't work that way!

The rest I'd be pleased to consider and post my reaction to, because I love debate like this. I'm passionate about language. Or maybe you'd prefer it - because there's every chance I may have an opinion that differs from yours at some point - if I just kept out of the thread? Happy to do either.

But of course we are all allowed opinions! As I said, I kicked off a generic discussion, I thought.

Then was asked to concretise it and give examples... which is a tough call as there are 100 different types of writer here. Sometimes generic issues serve to make a wider section of the population think?

At no time did I ever say anyone was wrong, I dont think... the only thing I stuck to was my belief that the vast majority of writers learn to improve their writing over time. (The methods , my terminology, was also not right, and I had to change it!) And many people came in to say that they did not learn by following guideleines. That was never explained.

I am bemused by the heat that came out of a simple question, a question which continues to fascinate me.


Vanessa

the only thing I stuck to was my belief that the vast majority of writers learn to improve their writing over time.

- Did anybody, at any point, disagree with that? Writers carry on learning about language all the time. (Actually, all us us carry on learning about language, it's just that the gradient of the curve flattens out.)

And many people came in to say that they did not learn by following guideleines. That was never explained.

- It depends how you define 'guidelines'. We all have stylistic preferences, worked out over time through our reading and writing, and sometimes by hearing what other writers or teachers say. For myself, I try to avoid having sentences close to each other that are constructed in a similar way. But no one passed this on to me, I just decided that when I tried to do it, it sounded unmusical and awkward. (It's absolutely not a rule, though, because John McGregor and Mark Haddon both use the technique as an effective literary device.)

So my explanation of how I came to develop this stylistic preference is that I read so much I developed an ear for how the rhythm of one sentence impacts on another. It's an instinct, an 'auralisation' of the written words, developed through reading and thinking about words. It's what makes writers choose 'stood up' rather than 'stood', or 'was swimming' rather than 'swam', or 'laughed carelessly' rather than 'laughed in a careless way'. I'm assuming that the other people who didn't follow rules to get published went through the same route. Or maybe not?

To take up your example of dialogue openers, I would have taken on board neither suggestion until I'd done a great deal of reading and seen for myself what effects could be achieved through such openings, and who was using them. Then I'd have carried on writing and, if a dialogue opener had suggested itself, I'd have gone with it. During revision I might have asked myself to double-check it was the correct way to start, but I'd do this automatically anyway, wherever the story began.

However, when I was learning to write I didn't know anyone had invented a rule about dialogue openers, in either direction.

FWIW, my Bridport runner-up in 200? (can't remember) began with direct speech, and that was important because the mc was coming into a dream, and it was the voice she heard first.

All goes to show, doesn't it... rules are made to be broken.

But maybe we need to learn them first?

Another analogy... Victor Borge, the 'Clown prince of Denmark' arsed about on the piano utterly brilliantly. He could also play it properly, briliiantly... and wouldnt have been able to make a name for himself as a clown on the keyboard unless he knew what was superb... so he could break it up.

V

Except there isn't a rule about opening or not opening with dialogue. You do what suits your story best.

I'm not sure you can draw a satisfactory analogy with playing an instrument and writing, either. When I sit down to play the piano (badly), I'm simply striking the notes someone else has written. I suppose there's a degree of interpretation required, but it's not free-form creative in the way writing from scratch is.

I spend loads of time opening up creativity in groups of adults who are finding it hard to express themselves, for whatever reason. Free flow creativity is wonderful... and if I can help them to 'let go' and write, talk... whatever, it is great.

I'm just coming to the end of co-tutoring a twelve week course for marginalised adults, on 'writing for a living'.

It's been a whistle-stop tour of different types of writing. Journalism, writing for radio, fiction from personal experience, free flow fiction (or whatever you want to call it).

Each type of writing seems to have different guidelines... not according to me, but according to the kind people at the local BBC radio station, who commissioned the students to wreite short pieces for possible broadcast.

Different 'rules' again for journalism, according to a well established freelance journo who brought newspapers (broadsheet and tabloid) and a range of magazines for the students to see this guy's work...


Last week we had the author of 'Stuart, a Life Backwards', talking to the group... about the rules as he saw them, as they applied to writing biography.

and we've covered fiction. But the students have all followed courses on fiction before so this course isnt so aimed at that.

In the twelve sessions, at least three have been devoted to rewriting and editing work across all the types.

I love the creative buzz. I try to tap it as often as I can. Then when I edit, I apply the craft I've learned... and I suppose, in a nutshell, thats how I try to pass it on.

There's a place, in my writing and teaching, for both. I guess we have to work out the best ways for each of us?

Vanessa

No, I don't think the analogy holds, either. What any good pianist has is technique, which he puts at the service of the composer. It's a composer who has to understand why Handel kept the 'rule' about no consecutive fourths and Bach broke it, and decide which to do and why. The pianist understands that decision, and plays the consecutive fourths to suit that purpose.

The writing equivalent of a pianist's technique seems to me the skills of process - concentration, research skills a huge vocabulary properly used, a good 'ear', mental habits of making connections and seeing patterns, grammar and syntax and spelling...

The trouble with rules as people so often describe them (and I don't think 'guidelines' does mean the same thing at all) is that they're binary - either you do what they say, or you don't. But it's not as simple as that. There are good and bad reasons for doing just about any of the things that get rules made about them. And what defines whether the reason is good or bad is whether the result works or not. It's idiotic to argue that beginners need rules, because what do they do as soon as (and it will be very soon) they meet writing that doesn't follow them?

Is the teacher going to say that the only good pieces of writing are ones whose techniques are restricted to those which are safe for beginners?

So, there's no earthly point in telling someone a 'rule' unless you also explain why it works so often, and therefore when it doesn't. You can't talk about what works and what doesn't except to someone who reads, and if they read, then they'll be constantly coming across stuff that flouts the 'rules'. Then the only rule that's left is the true but unhelpful one that 'the one rule of good writing is to write well'.

Emma