not to have your character noticing or remembering things,

and a few other rules. What tosh. Nobody's ever enjoyed Proust, then?

As Lammi says, given any rule, I can think of circumstances - and not far-fetched ones - where you shouldn't follow it.

Emma

Oh, and (she says, swigging tea with one hand and typing with the other because it's 6.19 am and I need to get going) I remember a very experienced writer on a respected course telling me that you should always tell the mc's story chronologically. I'd just read 'Behind the Scenes at the Museum' and raised this as an example - just one, because there are hundreds, thousands - of novels where the story's out of sequence to allow for dramatic irony, pace, last-minute-reveal etc. She just shrugged and said again, Always better to tell the mc's life story in chronological order. Start with childhood and work up, she said.

At that point I'd had no books published and she'd had about 70, so I did wonder. But as always, a check on my bookshelves told me you could do it either way, and you had to choose what worked for your story.

Ok, I'm away laughing on a fast camel.

Good luck with the filming, Kate - at least, I assume that's what you're doing. Mind the camel doesn't bite.

Emma

Doesn't style come down entirely to voice?

Surely 'anything goes' rule-wise as long it is authentic to the voice being used at whatever point, be that a cool, grammatically fastidious omniscience or a boozily unreliable adverby loquacity, or anywhere in between (or anywhere more extreme).

That's true but there is a difference between deliberate style or a deliberate voice and just plodding writing. The point is as long as something is thought through, deliberate or just works, then I don't think the "rules" come into it. But surely sometimes the "rules" are useful in terms of making us think about things that we might not have been previously aware of in our writing - like if we are unconsciously switching POV all the time without controlling it, or sometimes the too-many-adverbs thing can be a sign of unconfidence - thinking it has to be more flowery than it need be.

You can always find a counter-example to anything and I don't think people need to be slavish about them, but they can be a useful tool surely? I think someone said earlier they are really a kind of potted shorthand for common mistakes for inexperienced writers and therefore useful to know about. Doesn't mean you have to follow them. After all they don't really exist as such, and everyone disagrees about them anyway. I find it interesting to discuss such things as it is a window into common problems the reader might have with work (feeling alienated from characters or finding things confusing for example). The problem with the "rules" tag, however, is we forget to look at what was behind them (the avoidance of confusion) and tend to impose them for themselves alone (no omniscient fullstop), which doesn't necessarily make sense for different kinds of writing.

Snowbell, I don't know about you, but I don't implement them for themselves alone, but to improve my writing.

Okay, I'm sorry, but seeing Orwell's opinions on writing described as tosh is just not on. I don't think anyone on WW has yet written 1984, or Animal Farm, so maybe he'd be worth listening to.

So anyway, I'm gonna rant now:

Obviously massive respect to the Orwell, but I still say he's by and large listing tips which have worked for him.

So what is the point of this conversation? All we’re saying is do what works for you. Brilliant, I agree, but there’s no point in talking about these rules any longer. Whether Dan Brown is your bag or not, he’s a bad writer, in a way that can be illustrated when comparing his stuff to a good writer. It’s like Peter Jackson is a great film maker, and Chris Columbus is a bad film maker, because of a certain way they understand and implement the discipline. Evidence of this is Lord Of The Rings, compared with the first 2 Harry Potter films. Nearly the same length, but a world of difference in the content, and the styles, and the acting performances, and the overall believability and enjoyment the audience gets from the production. Anyway…I know I’ll get people saying well that’s just your opinion, which is fair enough, so it comes back to the issue of why bother talking about this anyway, as it seems people have decided the rules are not a good thing. Adverbs are great and don’t slow down the pace of the story, telling is fine, because it allows the author to really let loose with their words and descriptions, and is any easy way around the fact that the novel has been in existence for hundreds of years, and if it stays the same, the DB Spectres will seep in and suck the soul from it, commercialise the art form just as music is now more of an advertising aid than an art form. POV? Well, it’s better for the reader to know it’s ME not the character who is telling this story, because after all, it is me that wrote it and I need the reader to recognize that. He needs to know everything I want them to know, not what the story demands. Because he might miss something if I don’t tell everything how I want it.

Okay, I am ranting now. I know I am probably the Some People referred to in Snowbell’s post, or it sounds a bit like me anyway, and that’s fine, but feel free to name me if you want, in this case I’m totally fine with being the person that is a stickler for the rules. In everyday life, I like to skirt around a few, I like a joint, and a fag, and a bit of a skive. But when it comes to this, I use the rules, because I have seen the overwhelming evidence of their effect, in front of me, everyday when I write.

Look, if people are so sure of themselves, why even have this conversation? There are no rules, not even guidelines, let’s all agree, and see where it gets us. At the very least, we won’t have to have these conversations which boil down to:

“Are these rules necessary?”
“No, I don’t think so”
“Yes I do”
“Well, you always say that, but I don’t think Dan Brown uses them”
“I hate Dan Brown, he’s shit”
“No he’s not, he’s invisible”
“But he uses adverbs like they are going out of fashion, multiple POV, changing from page to page, he tells everyone’s backstories in huge dumps of exposition, and his story makes no sense, and it isn’t even a good one, particularly.”
“No, he sold ten gazillion copies”
“But they sell them at airports, and he’s designed it so you can have it read in 3 days, just enough time for a business trip, and maybe you can read the follow up if you’re on holiday…”
“Et cet e rah”

So just use what you friggin want! Howzabout that then?

If you think Dan Brown’s stuff is acceptable as a representation of the art form that is novel writing, if you think commercial stuff is the way to go, read as many DB and John Grisham books as you can stomach and copy them. Terry has some great analogies there, but I believe that what DB does is worse than Girls Aloud, at least they are incredibly fit. No, I mean that pop music has been commercialized to a pulp now, long before GA turned up, and the cynical marketing machine that they are, basically, exists to make others, and themselves loads of money.

DB is worse in a way that if GA were on Top of The Pops with their tits out. Kids reading DB, people who wouldn’t otherwise read picking up the Da Vinci Code, are just accepting that the novel is just another form of commercial entertainment, in this case to help them through their sun bathing, when there is nothing else to do. It's crude, it sucks, and it’s a million miles away from Orwell and Kerouac, or Hemingway, who were writing at a time when society wasn't just a quagmire of market driven commericial whoring. What has GA got to compare with? Elvis, Chuck Berry, The Beatles, The Pistols – they are lame compared to all those, they are shitty, Louis Walsh cash spinners, but they are closer to Elvis than Da Vinci Code is to 1984. DB is even worse than GA.

IMHO.

Well said Terry, that Becks analogy is spot on. If a beginner tried that they’d look like a right wally, they’d never get trials at Man Utd, and then to point at Becks and say but he did it would be missing the point to such an extent the United scouts would shrug and walk away laughing.

Terry has helped me more than any shitty Dan Brown book, but I learnt these guidelines we are talking about way before I met Terry, and I tried to use them, THOUGHT I was using them, but had no idea how until I understood them and now I see how rubbish what I wrote back then was. Thanks to Terry, and his understanding of what makes good writing work. I even feel bad for saying this because I don’t want my ranting to reflect on Terry, but I feel he gets a real lack of respect on this site, considering what he puts in, and that entails dismissing things he says as if they are said by someone, like me, who has little experience in this game. Fine, dismiss me, I probably talk the up most bollocks, but Terry deserves better than that.

Sorry, just thought it needs to be said.

So anyway, not sulking or anything, but I’ve decided not to over crit people’s stuff on WW, because it actually hinders me now, because I just constantly have to justify in my own head if I am just being a dogmatic arse, the Some People, of course, and I know I’m not, but who gives a shit? Just friggin write what you want, and if you get published, then sweet, it worked. I’ll point out good things, and the odd glaring mistake, but why enter into a big debate on something that could take my own progress back a few years, just coz I lose confidence in what I’ve learnt coz people don’t like cutting adverbs, or think that POV is irrelevant. Fine, but it is of the up most relevance to me thanks.

All this stuff about the “reader”. To me, that seems a little pretentious, maybe when I’m selling books I’ll worry about the reader, at the moment I’m worried about the writer. The Reader is just another excuse “Oh but the reader doesn’t notice, and he’s who we write for…” Yeah and where is he when we are writing, so I can ask if what I’m doing is okay? Under the bed? In the wardrobe?

These threads just look like validation, the Spectre of WW. Else what is the point of haggling over it? I mean trying to justify DB’s awful prose by saying he’s a creative writing teacher, so he’s doing it on purpose. I mean, yeah, come on, some f**kin teacher he is. As has been said before, God help his students. He’s just a shit writer, and got where he is through contacts, I would imagine, as that is what happens in most of these industries, where a million people want that elusive position that only a few ever achieve. I’ve seen it happen in music, I’m damn sure it happens in writing.

And Mark Twain, among others, said kill the adverbs, and he ain’t exactly a new author, you know what I mean?

Davy, if rules are your thing may I refer you to Strunk and White's Elements of Style. You may find Rule 13 useful.

At the very least, we won’t have to have these conversations ...

Surely no-one's making you have any conversations ? I like reading about, and discussing, writing techniques. As has been well pointed out, for every "rule" there is a counter-example that has been employed by a brilliant writer somewhere.

I haven't read Dan Brown, nor is he high on my list of things to catch up on. But my parents (who are not literary and would never in a million years consider picking up a George Orwell book) read The Da Vinci Code and loved it. Ascribing Brown's success to his nefarious "contacts" sounds (a) ludicrous and (b) rather like petty sour grapes.



<Added>

PS What's wrong with Girls Aloud ? They're not claiming to be the new Pink Floyd or anything.

So, Davy, it's pretentious to think in terms of having readers until you are published. Hmmmm. So aren't fellow group members on here 'readers'? Doesn't it make you feel satisfied when someone reads your work and 'gets' it, isn't that the whole point?

I wouldn't know where to start writing a novel without thinking about my readers, whether they'll like a particular character, get a particular joke, be able to visualize a particular scene, find some language too high-falutin...

If that makes me pretentious well, no apologies, i call it trying to create a darn good read.

Casey

I like a joint, and a fag, and a bit of a skive.

Davy, I think most people enjoy smoking, procrastinating and a joint of lamb from time to time.

(obviously, it's veggie lamb for me.)

Davy

Maybe it begs the question can you be a good writer if you've got no style. Maybe you can. Tolkien's style's pretty ropey but he spins a yarn like no-one else. Orwell's style's sharp as anyone's but outside of three or four of his books he can lose the reader along with the best of them...

"Rule 13: Omit needless words.

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. "

Thanks Griff, that is a great rule, and definitely a basic in writing a good story I think. If, however, on the slight chance you're having a pop at me, I don't think it really applies on internet chat forums, well not for me anyway, as I do like rambling.

I never said anyone was making me have this conversation, I was questioning the point of it, given that it seems many people think there are no guidelines, or if there are, they're just some kind of annoying irrelevance put there by the "industry".

I like reading about, and discussing, writing techniques

Yes, so do I.

There's nothing wrong with Girls Aloud, if that's your thiing. I really like the Irish one, and the blonde one, Sarah, and actually quite fancy the one with red hair too. I think Love Machine was fairly catchy, not too hot on their cover versions, and Sound of the Underground was a little contrived, for my tastes. Arctic Monkeys did a great cover of Love Machine, you should check it out.

Pink Floyd are quite boring I think, though I do like Wish You Were Here, and I can see the appeal of them, for sure.

I'm glad your parents enjoyed The Da Vinci Code. Mine didn't. You should recommend some Orwell, personally I think he's great, dunno about you, but I'm sure they, or anyone, would enjoy him too.

Casey - I'm not saying you're pretentious, I just said I think the concept of me writing for illusory readers, I find, a little bit pretentious, granted probably not as pretentious as me ranting about writing techniques, but, hey, what am I supposed to do, just shut my gob. Oh, okay then...



Anyway, I know what you mean, but what I'm saying is I see it from the story writing point of view, in the same way that Pete Docherty, say, probably doesn't write his songs from a listeners perpsective, but just tries to write the best song he can and hope that people like it. I hope you're not too offended by what I think, but these debates do stir up strong emotions in us, so that at least shows something positive about us all, when it comes to thinking about our writing.

lol Lisa - that's what I meant, only it has to be organic, I'm not on veggie stage yet. Yeah I know, I'm just highlighting the fact that I'm not some crazed rule Nazi. For want of a better description.

Zooter - I think that's more a question of taste, in style terms, but it highlights my point. Tolkien's style jars horrendously now, I think, coz it is so old fashoined, and all I'm saying is these guidelines, rules, whatever, are there to help us become better writers in a modern sense, not that Tolkien or Dickens are bad writers. Dan Brown compared to Dickens is a joke though, really, if you think of the social implications of Dickens' stories and Brown's spurious distortion of a conspiracy theory that may or may not be true. If it was well written, then wicked, great, but its so badly written, the reason I get so het up is that it hinders anyone who wants to be a good writer and have success. In my view.

I think all writers have individual style though, but a DB and Grisham book reads in much the same way, so I'd say they have very little style, in a good sense, whereas David Mitchell, for me, has a much more modern and exciting, and interesting, style.

Or one of my favourite writers is Philip Pullman, and he obviously goes outside these guideines, but he knows what he's doing, and what he's trying to achieve within the story. I've heard him say His Dark Materials was never particularly a children's book, but he decided to focus there to get onto the shelves that weren't full of Star Trek novels and Michael Moorcock style fantasy. He knew exactly what he was doing in every aspect of that whole series, I think, and it shows, as whatever technique he employs, whoever's POV (though he is pretty consistant with picking a POV and sticking with it for the scene) and even if he's getting a bit tell-y, it never jars, and is exceptionally well written, compared to Brown.

Davy,

Look I'm not trying to anger you.

And I don't believe I have said anything disrespectful about Terry either. I was trying to say that these rules are only useful when used specifically in relation to someone's writing (something in fact that I believe Terry himself said and puts into practice) and as an aid to thinking things through, rather than a stick to beat other people with.

I know you don't do that when critting other work. But you do "rant" as you say yourself about rules in the forums in a way that I don't think helps anyone see the benefit of them. Just because people aren't as "sticklerish" as you doesn't mean they think the opposite to you or disrespect your opinion. (And if they do think differently so what? That's the point of forums. You talk of validation - but surely wanting everyone to agree with you is another form of that?)

I know you are a person who gets very passionate about things and that's good, but surely, we can talk about rules without it getting so aggressive all the time?

And I hope I am not offending you again, because I am really not intending to. I feel that you keep shoving me into an arguing position that I don't even believe in!

At the end of the day, you keep saying writers shouldn't be so sensitive about receiving crits, well I would put it to you that we all need to calm down and be less over-sensitive - critters included. I don't think Terry needs such aggressive defending. I don't believe he has been treated with disrespect in this thread at all. Andrea and Casey were asking his opinions on things and I was discussing some of the points he made. Why is that disrespectful? Terry himself said all this stuff needs discussing and wrangling over. That's what we are doing.

These threads just look like validation, the Spectre of WW

Well said, Davey (though you buried it so deep in a rant that I almost missed it.)

Writers complaining about Dan Brown is a bit like musicians complaining about the The Sex Pistols, saying that they can't sing or play, so how come they sold so many albums?

Heh, heh, shutting your gob didn't last for very long, Davy.

I'm interested in your typing speed....how many words (or rants?) per minute?!

Casey

Rule 13: Omit needless words.

For fuck's sake, Davey, I wish you would - some of these rants read like War and Peace.