Davy

It's true, couldn't you just read back through stuff before posting and hack out loads of it? It's interesting some of what you've got to say but it's a schlep getting through it all. Some people are on lunch hours!

<Added>

:) :) :) :)

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 was having a pop at you. It wasn't meant to be malicious, though. Of course the same rules don't apply to Internet forums as "real" writing. But sometimes your rants are so long, and often unfocused, that very often I give up reading before I've figured out what your point is. A little precis and you'd make all our lives a little easier. Too much of course, and you'd lose your inimitable style.

You mention Philip Pullman as a favourite writer. I agree, he is fabulous. But I might describe his style as "invisible" in the same way as Dan Brown. While he conjures up amazing worlds and characters, writes real page-turners, and leaves the reader with plenty of fascinating food for thought, his writing style is very unobtrusive. It would be very hard to write a spoof of Pullman's writing for example. You could parody the storylines of His Dark Materials, or the Sally Lockheart books, but it would be very hard to identify anything to have a go at regarding the writing style of Pullman himself.

Colin, how very dare you.

I mean comparing Dan Brown to the Pistols? They could play, my Dad said. I seen em on tele the other night and they CAN play! That does it! I'm taking my ball home right NOW!!!

But actually...sniff...War n Peace...you reckon? Thanks man...

Rule 13 is the last resort. NEVER use Rule 13 unless all other options are expended.



Casey I'm hard n fast, but it's worth it. In the end. Perhaps.

Zooter - I think you need to stop being so square and quit your job.

Me and everyone else then!

Davy

I initiated this discussion so feel I should respond to you because you question that it should have been initiated at all. However, that alone suggests your views are so entrenched that I can't see the point.

Andrea

Come on Andrea, you can say whatever you like to me, coz I wouldn't like to fall out over writing guidelines, but yeah my views are entrenched, and I'm not changing them at this time, as I need those guidelines dammit.

I'm sorry if I questioned the point of this thread but it's more that I question the point of talking about these aspects of writing as guidelines, which should be broken, if people really think they aren't guidelines, or are trying to get a concensus on the fact that they aren't guidelines, rules, or whatever, on good writing. I just think they work, and they do work for me, so I'm entrenched in that sense.

And I really can't let justifying DB's bad writing as an example of good writing because he doesn't use rules, go, to be honest. It's nothing personal.



Luv

Davy
x

My point about the Pistols was that nobody bought "Never Mind the Bollocks..." for it's technical merit, but it sold in bucket loads.

And even today, it's still a brilliant album.

What readers like about DB is, he reads real. There's no poncy rules and writerish style about him, and they instinctively get that. He's just telling a tale in a no-bollocks way that everyone can relate to, and boy do they relate to it. You can waste a whole lot of energy getting upset about something which isn't aimed at you in the first place, and there's no point. It's aimed at folks who don't read. They don't like 'writing'. They like this DB style, which isn't a million miles from reading a tabloid, and that's exactly the point of it. It's not dumb. It's clever.

Andrea had a perfectly valid point in starting this discussion, and I agree that The Da Vinci Code is very readable and should make us wonder whether it’s always right to stick hard and fast to the rules/guidelines. I think rules should always be questioned, it’s part of understanding them and making an intelligent decision about following them or breaking them. The example of DB is definitely enough to question the rules, and to call him “a shit writer” is just ridiculous considering how many readers loved that book. Writing a bestseller, like writing a great pop song, isn’t easy.

Derek

They like this DB style, which isn't a million miles from reading a tabloid

What a great way of putting it. That's what I was trying to get across with my "blokey" style comments earlier. Tabloid literature - like it.

Writing a bestseller, like writing a great pop song, isn’t easy.

Dek, you should check this out, because according the title, it's as easy as shelling out a few quid for their book

Dek, you should check this out, because according the title, it's as easy as shelling out a few quid for their book

No, you're misrepresenting them. The title isn't "How To Write A Bestseller Just By Buying This Book And Doing Nothing Else". It's just "How To Write A Bestseller". Would you assume that a book called "How To Get Fit" implies that the reader doesn't have to do anything for themselves ?

No, Derek, suggesting that me not being allowed to say Dan Brown is a shit writer is ridiculous.

Why do people need to justify him being so great all the time? Surely it should be evident in his writing.

In my opinion, he doesn't make me question the rules, at all. He confirms the rules and everything they are saying.

I'm sorry if people don't see that, but you know, like I said, each to their own.

Some people bought the crazy frog, some people even like (and I know this sounds crazy) Coldplay. There's no telling for some people's tastes.

Never Mind The Bollocks is technically great, it's one of the greatest rock albums of all time, in terms of muscianship and especially songwriting, so people got that wrong, obviously believing in the media hype. Which is what people do about the DVC.

It just doesn't seem right to say that he's good because people who don't otherwise read like him. That means all the DB supporters on this site are in that cateogory. What it boils down to is marketing, or mass marketing, and making sure people know about it, and leading the consumer down the path to buying it.

I'm not getting upset about it, I'm just saying it's rubbish. And its really badly written. And if what you say is true Zoot, "No bollocks style" is a load of bollocks in my opinion.

And a tabloid style is a good thing in a novel is it? Well I never. I don't agree though, you won't be surprised to discover.

I guess all that won't go down so well then...

You just gotta let people enjoy what they want to enjoy. They pick up a writery book and they put it back down again. What are you gonna do point a gun at them while they read? There's no point in being elitist about it.

It's a red herring that DVC sold because of mass marketing. It sold cos one person read it and told the next person it was great.

Never Mind The Bollocks is technically great, it's one of the greatest rock albums of all time, in terms of muscianship and especially songwriting

Davy, do you know anything about musicianship and songwriting at all ? I speak as someone who used to work as a musician, who has studied composition and arrangements and songwriting.

Please, do share with us your explanation for the technical genius of Never Mind The Bollocks.

Did they use unusual song structures ? Unexpected or novel harmonies, scales, modes, rhythms or chord sequences ? Or perhaps the revolutionary combination of lead guitar, rhythm guitar, bass and drums had never been used before. I can't wait to hear.

Never Mind The Bollocks is a terrific ground-breaking album in terms of style and attitude. But "greatest musicianship and songwriting of all time" ? It's just a childish simplification of the standard rock and roll song invented twenty years earlier, played for laughs.

Cheers, Colin...I'll take a look.