Toward a "general standard"?

[jacksaunders]

Hi -- I'm new. Jack's the name. I'm writing my first novel, after having spent many years writing (rather dull) fiction for others...as a corporate speechwriter. My own stuff is much better, and I'm enjoying the process immensely, workshopping the book in a Berkeley writers group, and dropping in at Squaw Valley every year or so. But it's begun to gnaw on me, this sense that every submission in such workshops gets the same once-over, measured against a short list of standard checks, no matter where you go. Seems efficient, and I truly love the sessions. But it worries me that this might take a culture toward fairly homogenized product, its writers "trained" like its architects are trained, to turn out a serviceable product, but nothing inspiring, nothing challenging the general standard. I just re-read Kafka's The Trial -- and was amazed to find that the most important, most quoted 15 pages (about 3/4 thru, where he ruminates on the absurdity of the justice system) FLAGRANTLY violate the old workshop bugaboo RE: "Get into scene; better balance of scene and internal monologue." Why didn't some editor insist that he "show, not tell"? Moby Dick should not have been published under the same dictum. Did Hemingway and Austin have a little "checklists"?

[Julie Worth]

Novices love lists. Giving a presentation? A list is always a grabber. The ten steps to becoming an idiot! Look out there and see them writing it down.

[Jamesaritchie]

I think workshops and writing groups can be very good things for brand new writers who simply need to learn the basics, and need to know what common mistakes new writers routinely make.

Once this is done, however, I think both writing groups and workshops, however much fun they are, should be avoided like Limburger cheese on a hot day.

Well, writing groups can be very good for offering each other encouragement, and for having like-minded people to moan and groan to. But not for laying out rules and checklists and God save us all from fiction written on the basis of critiques.

There comes a time when I believe any good writer needs to strike out on his own, write what he wants to write in the way he wants it written. Do this, and you may end up teaching writing groups and workshops to use your rules and your checklists.

Or, much better, you'll end up being so busy writing that you won;t have time for writing groups or workshops.

[Susan Gable]

Hi, Jack! Welcome aboard! I have to say, sometimes I worry about the same thing, and I do think it's happened a bit in my genre, romance. Too many people following all the same "rules" and smacking the people who dare to break them leads to homogonized product. Ick.

I feel so strongly about this that a friend and I recently started giving a workshop titled "We Don't Need No Stinkin' Rules."

In truth, we want people to learn and understand the so-called rules first, before they start breaking them, but we also want to set them free from the rigidity of this heavy-handed, follow-the-rules-or-else mindset.

In other words, you have to have mastered POV before you can decide if you're cool with the One-POV-Only-Per-Scene mindset, or if you, like me, think it's okay to do a controled switch in the middle of scene.

I do think it's a sad commentary on us that we've become so damn rigid and unflexible about certain things. I've seen too many people flogged for what was rule-breakage that was WORKING for the story/piece. I think we're doing ourselves and our craft a disservice.

That said, I do whole-heartedly agree that people do need to learn all these craft issues FIRST. There are strong, valid reasons that we don't do omniscent POV so much anymore. (It's all about bonding the reader to your character. Omniscent doesn't do that very well.) So I'm not saying toss all the craft stuff right out the window; please don't mistake me on that.

But I do think in some cases it's gotten out of control. :) And I do think that's leading to a certain amount of sameness.

Dare to be different! Be a rebel! :):banana: :snoopy:

Susan G.

[Vomaxx]

I think it's OK to break "the rules" if you know what they are; but some writers don't seem to think it necessary to learn them. "Show, don't tell" is, I believe, quite a recent "rule"--certainly 19th-century novels often "tell" extensively--but in general it's a good rule.

Be a rebel only if you know what you are rebelling against, and can justify your rebellion.

[Susan Gable]

Vomaxx, absolutely they have to know the rules before they can break them. I said so here:

we want people to learn and understand the so-called rules first, before they start breaking them,

and here:

...you have to have mastered POV before you can decide if you're cool with the One-POV-Only-Per-Scene mindset, or if you, like me, think it's okay to do a controled switch in the middle of scene.

and here:

I do whole-heartedly agree that people do need to learn all these craft issues FIRST. There are strong, valid reasons that we ...(have certain "rules")

So, yes, learn FIRST, then break them.

Susan G., not advocating willy-nilly total disregard for craft issues that have good reason for existing.

[pconsidine]

I had a similar conversation about writing groups not too long ago. Typically, groups of amateurs will give you very tame commentary. There will be the usually criticism of typos and bad grammar, a little bit about "I like this character," but very little substantial criticism.

It's equally an aversion to sounding discouraging and to sounding like we know what we're doing (which none of us really do). I used to belong to such a group (and still do, if I'm ever free on a meeting night) and quickly gained the reputation as the guy who would call a spade a spade in no uncertain terms. If it was a dull concept, I'd say so. If it was a giant cliche parade, I'd say so. And while no one would confess to agreeing with me ever, they sure seem to miss me when I'm not there.

Make of that what you will.

[inanna]

Good writing can do what it wants. A strong voice can tell and tell and tell, and we'll keep reading because it's interesting. I think it takes a very strong voice and a lot of talent to pull off such a thing, but it can be--and is--done. I agree with everyone saying that the rules are the equivalent of Writing 101 (although the people giving you the rules often forget to mention that). But the bottom line is always if it works...it works.

[Fishmonkey]

As others have said, writing groups have their utility. Most of the advice you'll get will be useless, but with a few sound bits in it. However, I doubt that writing groups are in any way indicative of culture in general. It takes a strong voice to break away from the rest of the group; no adverb avoidance or showing instead of telling will accomplish that.

[Jamesaritchie]

Of course, just because rules can be broken doesn't mean they should be. Rules are usually rules because they work very, very well when applied properly. Far more often than not, following the "rules" is a good idea. Breaking them should always be done for a reason, for a real purpose, and should always make the story/writing/characters better.

I'd also say that far more often that not, writers fail when they break the rules.
Because rules can be broken in no way means they should be. Sometimes breaking the rules works, but far more often, following the rules works much better.

[banjo]

I think workshops and writing groups can be very good things for brand new writers who simply need to learn the basics, and need to know what common mistakes new writers routinely make.

Once this is done, however, I think both writing groups and workshops, however much fun they are, should be avoided like Limburger cheese on a hot day.

Well, writing groups can be very good for offering each other encouragement, and for having like-minded people to moan and groan to. But not for laying out rules and checklists and God save us all from fiction written on the basis of critiques.

There comes a time when I believe any good writer needs to strike out on his own, write what he wants to write in the way he wants it written. Do this, and you may end up teaching writing groups and workshops to use your rules and your checklists.

Or, much better, you'll end up being so busy writing that you won;t have time for writing groups or workshops.

I definitely agree with you James.

[Susan Gable]

Of course, just because rules can be broken doesn't mean they should be. Rules are usually rules because they work very, very well when applied properly. Far more often than not, following the "rules" is a good idea. Breaking them should always be done for a reason, for a real purpose, and should always make the story/writing/characters better.

I'd also say that far more often that not, writers fail when they break the rules.
Because rules can be broken in no way means they should be. Sometimes breaking the rules works, but far more often, following the rules works much better.

James, in romance, there are supposedly rules like "The hero and heroine MUST meet within the first five pages."

That's a rule just made to be broken, IMHO. <G> In fact, I do break it regularly.

I don't agree with the one-POV-per-scene "rule" either. I have no problem as a reader with following a controled switch in POV. I don't need a breakspace to tell me we're switching, either. And yet, there are writers out there who routinely flog any other writer who dares to switch.

Those are the kinds of "rules" I'm talking about breaking. Again, if you haven't mastered the craft of POV, then you are unable to make a controled switch, you are unable to decide for yourself which way you like to write, or which way works for this particular story. You don't know the WHYS to decide otherwise. But I'm really tired of some people deciding it must be done X way, or no way and trying to impose that view on everyone else. This is an ART form. There needs to be some flexibility involved.

I am not excusing crappy writing. But I'm griping about the overwhelming constraints that are coming down the pike from I don't even no where.

Other rules I hear from people, including people who are critiquing others, and doing workshops, and judging contests:

Never get inside your characters' heads. No internal dialogue, ever. No prologues. No epilogues. ALWAYS show and NEVER tell. Ever. Never use an adverb. Never use a passive verb. Never use a passive sentence construction. (Romance specific: No sports heroes, no artists, no heroines with a bad past, no swearing, etc. etc. etc.)

I see people popping on these boards all the time to ask questions like, is it okay for me to use a prologue? Why do they have to ask that? Because someone told them that it was a set-in-stone rule that no prologues should be used. "Prologues are lazy writing. Prologues are unnecessary. Prologues...fill-in-the-blank-with-your-favorite-anti-prologue-reason."

Sometimes they might be lazy writing. Sometimes they might be unnecessary. But they exist for a reason. A writer should feel free to make use of it if it works for his story.

Susan G.

[inanna]

Never get inside your characters' heads. No internal dialogue, ever. No prologues. No epilogues. ALWAYS show and NEVER tell. Ever. Never use an adverb. Never use a passive verb. Never use a passive sentence construction.

Yeah, those are the 'rules' that set my teeth on edge. But then I happen to be a big fan of past perfect tense and the dreaded 'had'--I mean, when writing in past tense, how else are you supposed to differentiate between the present when referring to the past?

ETA: oh, and I use 'was' too, because how else do I indicate that an action (perhaps one just noticed by POV character) is an ongoing one?

I dunno, just venting I guess ;).

[Mistook]

Susan,

To me, most of the rules you mentioned do teach valuable writing skills. For instance, if I can write an entire chapter without ever getting into any of the character's heads, or switching POV, and do it well enough that the feelings of these characters still come through, then when I do get into a head, or switch a POV, it's going to be have that much more power.

Same goes, I would say for Show V Tell. If I can succeed at getting the reader to infer most of the back story, then when I do decide to settle in for a tell, it's going to be that much more relevant to the story.

I look at most of these rules as being similar to physical exercise. It's always easier to tell. It's easier to spill the beans about every character's thoughts. But I think everybody would agree that if you always take the easy way, you end up with writing that has no power.

The opposite is also true, of course, if the whole story is devoid of character thought, and exposition, it's... well it's a screenplay. It can come off quite cold.

So, to each their own, but I do think it's important to master the more difficult aspects at some point. As far as crit-groups go, I wouldn't trust any body who pulls out the rule book without being able to say exactly why this rule should have been followed in this particular instance. It's never enough just to cite the rule and pass that off as feedback.

I think one of the rarest things in the world is to find a fellow writer who truly reads the works of his/her peers in a setting like that, and can report back with any insight at all.

[paprikapink]

But I think everybody would agree that if you always take the easy way, you end up with writing that has no power.
.....
As far as crit-groups go, I wouldn't trust any body who pulls out the rule book without being able to say exactly why this rule should have been followed in this particular instance. It's never enough just to cite the rule and pass that off as feedback.



Great topic. I've been scratching my head over this one quite a bit lately. Actually, I just have an itchy head.

I think Mistook's exercise analogy is a good one. I want to describe what I like about it, but I end up just saying the same thing over again. "...in this particular instance..." is also a key phrase. It is perhaps the Master Key.

I just read my first Janet Evanovich and tried to read a little Danielle Steele...those gals are breakin' "rules" right and left and rolling in dough. It'd be an interesting exercise to go back to their first submissions and see if they were so free and easy when they were knocking on doors for that first break.

[brinkett]

I just read my first Janet Evanovich and tried to read a little Danielle Steele...those gals are breakin' "rules" right and left and rolling in dough. It'd be an interesting exercise to go back to their first submissions and see if they were so free and easy when they were knocking on doors for that first break.
Yeah, I hear all about these rules, then pick up the book I'm reading and find them broken all over the place. I read all the time--I always have a book on the go--and I've yet to find a book that doesn't break at least one at some point. Telling, passive sentences, saidisms, adverbs and adjectives, small POV violations or blatant headhopping, "as" and "-ing", etc. You name it, it's there, in books that have sold well.


So, to each their own, but I do think it's important to master the more difficult aspects at some point.

Susan constantly says that writers should master the rules before breaking them.

[Susan Gable]

Susan constantly says that writers should master the rules before breaking them.

Thank you, thank you, Brinkett. I was starting to feel like this:

:Headbang: :Headbang: :Headbang: :Headbang:

So I really do appreciate your pointing out that I do want people to master the rules of strong writing first, before they launch into rule-breaking territory.

Rule-breaking is NOT territory for the beginners. It's for the intermediates and experts. Newbies should not try this at home! :)

Basically my feeling is this: IT's the STORY, STUPID! <G> (To paraphrase a politician. Please, please, do not think I am actually calling people stupid. I would only ever mutter that under my breath. LOL.) I think there are a lot of technically correct mss out there that don't have a spark to them, and it's because the writer has edited the life out the piece in an effort to conform to all the rules. Why is that? Because it's much easier to learn and apply all those rules than it is to figure out how to capture that elusive spark. How the heck to do you teach people to make magic? There is no Hogworts for us.

An editor is going to be far more interested in the ms that has spark, magic, makes her keep turning pages even if it has some weird POV stuff going on because the POV stuff can be fixed, if need be. But inserting spark/fire/magic - very difficult if it's not there.

And now, to prevent feeling like :Headbang: or maybe :Hammer: I think I'll go work on my WIP or something and avoid this thread. <G> (But hey, Jack, I still agree with your initial assessment! LOL.) Maybe I'll break some rules. Hmmmm...does the cat need a POV??? LOL. (Just kidding, and yet...it's been done successfully in recently published books. <G>)

Susan G.

[maestrowork]

It's good to know these rules... these LISTS of DOs and DONTs. Then as we become seasoned writers, we can break them. Much like how kids should learn basic grammar rules, or how to paint by the number. It's NOT to say, "Bobby, from now on you should only paint this way." But without knowing the rules, we wouldn't know how to break them effectively and creatively. Do you think Picasso didn't go through years of basic training in the studio art or study the masters? Do you think writers such as Hemingway didn't study the "rules" of writing before he unleashed his literary genius? Most great artists break rules, but not before they know what they are.

I would never say "never." ;) Personally, I am not crazy about prologues, for example. But I would not tell a writer to never write a prologue. I do suggest them think about why they want to have a prologue, because I think a lot of new writers don't really understand. They think "I have a lot of back stories to tell before the main story begins" or "I have some bits of story that is not in the same timeline..." IMHO, none of which is a good reason. My question is: are these back stories absolutely necessary? Can't the extra timeline be part of chapter 1 instead? These are the questions I want the writers to ask themselves and they must understand these things such as "what's the purpose of a prologue?" before they delve into it.

Another such "rule" is "you must have a hook in the first sentence or paragraph." I think it's something to keep in mind, but it's not absolute. I don't want to see every story open with a catchy hook like "He just killed his father and ate his flesh" or open with an explosion. The basic idea is sound -- we want to readers to want to read on -- but there is no absolute ways of doing that.

[Jamesaritchie]

James, in romance, there are supposedly rules like "The hero and heroine MUST meet within the first five pages."

That's a rule just made to be broken, IMHO. <G> In fact, I do break it regularly.

I don't agree with the one-POV-per-scene "rule" either. I have no problem as a reader with following a controled switch in POV. I don't need a breakspace to tell me we're switching, either. And yet, there are writers out there who routinely flog any other writer who dares to switch.


Susan G.

I know it depends on the reader, and if everything else is very good, I will tolerate an occasional POV in mid-scene, but "tolerate" is the work. And when a writer switches POV in mid-scene, I toss the book away and will probably never, ever read that writer again. I simply do not believe there's ever a need, ever a good reason, for using more than one POV per scene. To me, it simply comes across as laziness at best, and distracting, bad writing at worst.

I don't need a break space to tell me the writer is switching POV, either. The POV switch in mid-scene jumps off the page like a big, red pimple on a model's nose. That's the point.

Writers can do what they wish, but the one POV per scene rule is, I think, not only good, but necessary. There simply is no good or logical reason not to follow it, and I've never, ever read a scene that wasn't severely harmed by switching POV in the middle.

Can you change POV in mid-scene and still get published? Of course. Especially in the romance genre. Will most readers notice? Probably not. It's still lazy writing, and I've never read a POV switch in mid-scene that couldn't be drastically improved by sticking to one POV.

Switching POV in mid-scene doesn't bother many readers, but it darned sure bothers some, and it should bother all. And whether or not it bothers readers, it should bother writers because there's always, no exceptions, a better way to write the scene.

As for the hero and heroine meeting in the first five pages, this always seemed kind of strict to me, but they do need to meet soon. It's a romance novel, so get on with the romance.

As for such things as "Never get inside your characters' heads. No internal dialogue, ever. No prologues. No epilogues. ALWAYS show and NEVER tell. Ever. Never use an adverb. Never use a passive verb. Never use a passive sentence construction. (Romance specific: No sports heroes, no artists, no heroines with a bad past, no swearing, etc. etc. etc.)"

Well, most of these aren't rules at all, though more often than not, all are very good ideas. Most prologues and epilogues I see aren't really prologues or epilogues at all, and when this is the case, they shouldn't be in a novel. And while tell is sometimes good and necessary. show is better 99% of the time. Passive verbs aren't good things, and adverbs are not your friend. Passive sentence construction should only be used when the writer intentionally wants a sentence to be bland, boring, or otherwise flat. With passive construction, it will be one of these things.

In truth, I very seldom see writers break any of these "rules" to good effect. They're usually broken because the writer isn't good enough not to break them, not because breaking them improves the writing in any way.

Genre conventions such as type of hero, no swearing, etc., are one thing. That's between the writer and the publisher and has nothing to do with good or bad writing. But the writing itself is another matter, and I think one of the main reasons so many put down romance writers is because there's so much really bad writing in the genre that still manages to get published.

[LightShadow]

Write what flows.

[Susan Gable]

And when a writer switches POV in mid-scene, I toss the book away and will probably never, ever read that writer again. I simply do not believe there's ever a need, ever a good reason, for using more than one POV per scene. To me, it simply comes across as laziness at best, and distracting, bad writing at worst.

But the writing itself is another matter, and I think one of the main reasons so many put down romance writers is because there's so much really bad writing in the genre that still manages to get published.


:kiss: James.

Susan G.

[cwfgal]

Never get inside your characters' heads. No internal dialogue, ever. No prologues. No epilogues. ALWAYS show and NEVER tell. Ever. Never use an adverb. Never use a passive verb. Never use a passive sentence construction. (Romance specific: No sports heroes, no artists, no heroines with a bad past, no swearing, etc. etc. etc.)

The problem I see with these is the use of the words "never" and "always." The rules are guidelines and writers should strive to use them to make their work as strong as possible. But "always" or "never" never works. http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif

If you have a passive sentence or a telling-rather-than-showing section, you first need to be able to recognize them as such. Then you need to evaluate each one and determine if it can be bettered by changing it to conform with the applicable rule. Most of the time, the answer will be yes, but not always. The problem a lot of writers have is that this sort of analysis takes a lot of time and they aren't willing to invest said time due to impatience or an inability to be objective enough about their own writing.

Beth

[cwfgal]

Switching POV in mid-scene doesn't bother many readers, but it darned sure bothers some, and it should bother all. And whether or not it bothers readers, it should bother writers because there's always, no exceptions, a better way to write the scene.

I think those of us who write and know these rules notice it more than the average reader and are more bothered by it. Whenever I see a POV switch mid-scene, I notice it, and that takes me out of the story. That's not a good thing. However, I'm not sure most non-writing readers would notice it. Still, before I can get to them, I have to get the work past professionals such as agents and editors who likely will notice.

I don't want to risk taking ANY reader out of the story if I can help it and for that reason, I don't break this particular rule often if ever. That's not to say you can't do it and get away with it. But I do think it reduces your chances of getting published...and continuing to do so.

Beth

[maestrowork]

The problem a lot of writers have is that this sort of analysis takes a lot of time and they aren't willing to invest said time due to impatience or an inability to be objective enough about their own writing.


What are they doing during rewrites, then? Sit back and admire what great writers they are?

To me, writing the first or even second draft is to pour out your heart and soul and get the story out. Revision is when you become the mean editor/red pen-wielder and cut/chop/move/delete/rewrite/start-over as if someone else wrote that PoS... to make sure the story comes out beautifully with all the heart and soul intact.

[Euan H.]

Can you change POV in mid-scene and still get published? Of course. Especially in the romance genre.

... romance writers is because there's so much really bad writing in the genre that still manages to get published.

:Ssh:

[Mistook]

Susan constantly says that writers should master the rules before breaking them.

So what's your point?