I'm just reading The Da Vinci Code. It's manipulative but (to me) surprisingly readable. We all know it sold by the bucketloads and had readers drooling.

However, if Dan Brown had posted chapters on WW would we all have screamed 'the adverbs! the tell-not-show! the info dumps!'?

It's said for instance that agents/publishing house editors hate adverbs and will dismiss us as amateurs if we pepper our prose with them, but they obviously didn't dismiss Dan Brown. We focus heavily on POV, but I read published novels (not necessarily commercial fiction) in which I've seen POV change from paragraph to paragraph. Again, those writers weren't dismissed by the industry. etc etc. Yes, there's an argument that once you know the Rules you can break them, but at what point would we allow writers on WW to break them without going 'adverbs! POV!'?

So do we focus here too much on the Rules (or what we perceive to be the Rules) to the exclusion of individual style and reader-pleasure? Are the Rules actually synonymous with good writing? Is there a danger that, as for instance Creative Writing Programmes are said to produce Creative-Writing-Programme-writing, we'll influence each other to produce uniform writing?

Just asking.

Andrea

So do we focus here too much on the Rules (or what we perceive to be the Rules) to the exclusion of individual style and reader-pleasure?

Yes, because people talk of them as rules, instead of guidelines for nervous beginners. They're like training wheels on a bike - a help to start, but you'll never really learn to ride till you take them off.

Are the Rules actually synonymous with good writing?

No. They're a collection of things which people have worked out from looking at good writing and seeing what it's built of. Most of those good writers didn't think of it as rules, they trained their ear and eye and instinct by reading fiction, not rule books.

Is there a danger that, as for instance Creative Writing Programmes are said to produce Creative-Writing-Programme-writing, we'll influence each other to produce uniform writing?

Probably not here, because there are so many styles and levels and likes and dislikes represented. Plus it's take-it-or-leave-it. Whereas in anything with assessment and pass/fail there's a risk that the criteria will be defined too narrowly. But that's true of art schools too, of course, and I don't think anyone thinks they're surplus to requirements, as many people do of CW courses. And I speak as the very happy product of an, admittedly very unusual, CW course.

Emma

Yes, because people talk of them as rules, instead of guidelines for nervous beginners

I agree with this for nervous beginners. That's why I said at what point will we allow a writer to break the rules? At what point do we say, this writer is sufficiently skilful that they have earned the right to break the Rules? (and wouldn't there be a touch of arrogance to that?)

They're a collection of things which people have worked out from looking at good writing and seeing what it's built of. Most of those good writers didn't think of it as rules, they trained their ear and eye and instinct by reading fiction, not rule books.

They seem to me a collection of Rules currently in vogue which bear little relation to good writing from even the fairly recent past. Past writers wrote also through instinct and came to very different conclusions about good writing than those we have reached. Is it then instinct? Are our Rules actually a natural progression, a refinement that has inevitably brought us to our ways of writing/critiquing prose?

Probably not here, because there are so many styles and levels and likes and dislikes represented

There are many different types of writing on WW, but if we are critiquing them all nonetheless by the same Rules, then don't we uniform them all to a degree?

Plus it's take-it-or-leave-it.

Does this mean that the new writer to WW who wants to experiment outside of the Rules will just leave it and disappear again? Or the existing WW member looking to experiment beyond the Rules?

Andrea

I don't think it is as cut and dried as that. Dan Brown wrote a highly enjoyable yarn and that is why it proved popular. It was different,and then it was swept up by the media. Whatever the rules, the story is all important. All levels of ability on WW, and hopefully we are all looking to improve. I prefer to look at the nuts and bolts of writing as helpful pointers. It's not so much a take it or leave it approach as a careful sifting of the points raised. Deciding what you can use or need to discard and that choice is what helps develope our individual styles.
Kat

Does this mean that the new writer to WW who wants to experiment outside of the Rules will just leave it and disappear again? Or the existing WW member looking to experiment beyond the Rules?

Well, I hope not. I don't spend much time in the archive, so I don't know what current habits are. But as was discussed recently on another thread, the key skill of critting is trying to understand what someone's trying to do - however comprehensively they're failing - and then discussing what's getting in the way. I'd be horrified if critting was about ticking boxes that say 'kept the rules' or 'didn't'.

It's true that many (perhaps most) beginner writers 'tell' where they should 'show', so that 'show don't tell' becomes a quick way of pointing out a frequent mistake. Similarly, most beginner writers are drunk on words - very properly - and over-write everything, which is why it's such a shock when you realise that 'the man walks over the hill' is the best words for the job. So 'cut-cut-cut' is another frequent writing crit-er's cry. It's much rarer to get one whose writing is too bare and bony.

But fundamentally, it's not about what you're 'allowed' or 'not allowed' to do - which is the implication of calling them rules. If a crit says 'show, don't tell' it simply means your telling hasn't worked here. It's up to you to decide whether to switch to show because telling is the wrong technique, or - more sophisticatedly - that telling is the right technique for this moment, but you need to do it better.

That's why it's worth understanding the so-called rules, which aren't rules at all but guidelines. Understanding them is about having both tools in your toolkit - show, and tell, say - and knowing the power and limitations of both.

Emma

<Added>

I'm agreeing with you, Kat, in other words, only you've put it much more succinctly.

Whatever the rules, the story is all important

.

I agree with this, and perhaps it's why Dan Brown gets away with being adverb-happy. As a writer, I noticed the adverbs because they weren't supposed to be there, but would non-writing readers? Did they actually spoil their enjoyment? (Did they actually spoil mine? No). Did they cause him to be dismissed by agents/publishers? No. So if readers don't mind them and agents/publishers don't, where's the problem? etc etc.

But as was discussed recently on another thread, the key skill of critting is trying to understand what someone's trying to do - however comprehensively they're failing - and then discussing what's getting in the way.

It was that thread that prompted this one, because while I agree absolutely that GOICTI! should mean exactly that and that negative criticism is always useful, even if only to cause us to consider before choosing not to follow it, before we offer our (sometimes brutal) honesty should we not have considered where our perceptions of good and bad writing come from? I can't help but feel that if DB had posted on WW he'd have quickly retreated under a barrage of Rules-based crit and I can't see that's a good thing.

Andrea

First of all, Dan Brown was (is) a Creative Writing tutor, so he possibly knew he was breaking certain rules, secondly, The Da Vinci Code wasn't his first novel (possibly not relevant).

Dan Brown set out to write books for a particular audience, and writing in a very careful manner to make sure he netted that audience well. Consider his style: short, punchy chapters, uncluttered language and lots and LOTS of factual information.

This "factual information" allows loads of "Tell don't Show". It's a very "male" style and it works for people who don't want to be bogged down with character evolution, emotions and meaningful dialogue. Instead, they go for facts, action and stuff happening. They want a writer to tell them what's going on and why - as opposed to finding out by seeing each scene through a particular POV.

Anthony Horrowitz uses the same technique in the Alex Rider series. Actually, I can think of a few, eg. Matthew Reilly, early James Herbert. I'd bet good money that if Jeremy Clarkson wrote a book, it would be so "bloke" focussed that he'd probably loose all dialogue other than "Die you bastard!", describe every gun/car/computer in high spec technical detail and give us a plot on par with a James Cameron script.

I know that DB gets slagged on here, but I don't think it's bad writing. I fully believe it's targeted writing. And a writers, it's a style that we should understand, recognise, and have in our toolkit.

Maybe it's time we did a few more exercises on this site. Say, for example, we something similar to the old RLG* but set a style for each piece to be delivered. And it's fine to take the piss and go OTT, because parody of style really helps to hammer home the key points.

What the hell, I'll even throw down the gauntlette myself.

For the end of November. To be done "blokey"/Dan Brown style. The opening line is...

"A smell of rotten meat made me gag"

Colin M

*RLG - for new(ish) members, the RLG stood for Random Line Generator, and was a monthly game/exercise we used to play. It resulted in some fine writing and is superb for encouraging comments and helping your own writing improve.

I do think that for novels there's a built-in limitation on any kind of WW/writers' circle. It's really hard to get a handle on the big arc of a story or character or theme when you only see the work in chunks. And so there's always a tendency to focus on the brushwork, if you like, rather than the big picture. With something like DVC, it's the story arc that's obviously successful, and if it cropped up on WW, we wouldn't easily be able to tell that.

I remember the professor who runs the Masters I did saying that he was aware that in some ways the novelists got the raw deal from any such course. It wasn't my experience there, but the nature of the course meant that I did have a tutor involved with the whole thing, even if not everything got workshopped.

And yes, working on your own writing inevitably makes you beady-eyed about other people's: you lose your innocence about writing, you could say.

But - dare I say it - I'm wondering if you've encountered some particularly doctrinaire and rule-minded critiquers lately. As Kat says, you need to sift the points raised, then use them or discard them, and if you're told you've broken a 'rule' (God, I hate that word!) maybe you meant to, or maybe your instinct dictated that you did.

Emma

<Added>

Colin, I've only read a page of DVC and couldn't be bothered to go on, but Anthony Horovitz is a cracking writer who both I and my teenaged son admire and enjoy enormously. Ian Fleming ditto, and early Le Carré. Anyone else here a Gavin Lyall fan, by the way? Dick Francis at his best? It's a long and honourable tradition. Of course that kind of writing is as good as any other, provided it's done well. 'The man walked over the hill' is probably particularly often what that kind of prose wants, which is an excellent reason for having it in the toolkit.

What the first page of DVC told me was that - for me - it wasn't done well.

Emma, if your teenage son thinks Anthony Horrowitz is good, buy him Jimmy Coates: Killer by Joe Craig - better written, paced and more original. Superb.

<Added>

"more" original??? What am I saying. It's like "almost" certain... Doh!!!

Ooh, thanks, Colin, I'll look out for it! I'm always trying to find things he'll like that I think are good: he can blooming well buy his own Andy McNabs. He's actually mildly dyslexic, so the printed word doesn't slip down quite as easily as film/audiobook/radio, and a rip-roaring story does help!

Emma

First of all, Dan Brown was (is) a Creative Writing tutor, so he possibly knew he was breaking certain rules

Yes, I found that interesting - that he knew the rules but didn't just break them but took a pick-axe to them and with relish.

It's a very "male" style

It is, but (interestingly) it works for women too. I wonder if that's because of the subject matter, ie art?

I know that DB gets slagged on here, but I don't think it's bad writing. I fully believe it's targeted writing. And a writers, it's a style that we should understand, recognise, and have in our toolkit.

Absolutely, there are many styles and we could learn from them all.

Andrea

I think the DVC was widely taken out of context in literary circles. It's a mass market pulp pleaser, and nothing more, and maybe that's why so many people liked it. It's a simple story really, and not my bag, but I can't say I didn't enjoy it, even if it was riddled with inaccuracies and suppositions.

Rules were made to be broken, weren't they?

JB

JB,

you didn't just admit to enjoying DVC, did you?

As i've said before, i enjoyed DVC and found it liberating as a writer to read something which so blatantly defied the rules. I stopped obsessing about chapter lenght for a start

I'm certainly guilty of following the rules and as i mentioned in a recent thread, have been paranoid about adverbs to the point of my characters being in a continual state of motion, looking at the floor, fiddling with their tie, wiping perspiration from their brow, twiddling their hair....it's been exhausting.

It's a wonderful moment for a beginner to find the confidence to break the rules from a position of knowledge and confidence.

Casey

I read DVC very quickly and thought it was ok. I mean, the earth didn't move or anything, and the theme fascinates me as much as it did in HBHG years before. I can read pulp, and enjoy it, and I found it to be pulp with upmarket pretensions really. Hated the film though. A real yawn-o-rama.

I think the rules depend on what kind of writer you are, in what kind of genre. I can certainly imagine fantasy and chick lit being less 'strict' about certain things, compared say to the literary end of things, but I may be completely wrong about that. I have become an anti-passive voice creature of late, but I still make up my own words now and again!

JB

It's a wonderful moment for a beginner to find the confidence to break the rules from a position of knowledge and confidence.

And also to read something and not just think, but to know and understand why, it's crap.