THE RULES

kuwisdelu said:

And of course, to break them, you need to understand where they come from and why they're there.

Click to expand...

What should you do if you don't understand them and don't know where they come from? Follow them?

No, you should learn them. Obviolusly.

Dawnstorm said:

What should you do if you don't understand them and don't know where they come from? Follow them?

Click to expand...

No one was born knowing the rules of correct English. We all learned them. So can you.

Dawnstorm said:

What should you do if you don't understand them and don't know where they come from? Follow them?

Click to expand...

As others have said, it's best to learn them. But don't be too daunted. I learned almost everything I needed to know about how to write and use grammar properly in junior high school. Then I forgot all those rules and even the names of parts of speech, so that when I see threads discussing grammatical rules around here, they fly over my head. Thing is, even though I forgot why the rules work, I still remember how they work. The result is, even though I don't know WHY a grammatical rule is so, I can usually see if something is wrong. It's become a sort of intuitive thing--like somebody can be jarred by a false note without knowing what note it is.

The basis of understanding is there, and that's what matters.

Willowmound said:

No, you should learn them. Obviolusly.

Click to expand...

And in the meantime? You know, while writing? Follow them? Ignore them?

[To the others, thanks for your replies but as this thread isn't talking about grammar, neither am I. Different sort of "rules".]

***

Let me elaborate. There's writing advice phrased in rule-form. Most of them come in one of two variations:

1. Don't do X: ("Don't use the passive voice!")
2. Choose X over Y: ("Show, don't tell.")

Now, it's clear that you need to know what "X" (and "Y") is about before you can even think of applying the rule. Now, looking at published stuff, and even looking at good published stuff, it's clear that these "rules" are sometimes followed, sometimes not.

What do we make of this? Easy! These aren't really rules, they're guidelines. All the good writers know them and are breaking them at their own discretion.

So what do I do if I don't understand the rules? It looks like I'm in a bit of a pickle. On the one hand, I need to use my intuition when the rule applies and when it doesn't. But I don't trust my intuition, which is exactly why the rule-structure of the advice sounds appealing.

I see two sorts of common reactions out there.

Fretting: "Is it okay to...?" There's only one answer to that, really: "Write and see." That's the only way to learn. But the rule approach defers the "write and see." You need to know the rules to break them effectively. You're not good enough yet. So the rule-answer to "Is it okay to...?" would be: If you still have to ask the question, no, it's not.

Stick to the letter: "Tell me how to identify X, so I can avoid it!" This one's just depressing. You've tagged a perfectly good structure with a negative feeling before you get to know what it does. That taints everything you learn about it.

Neither of these reactions lead to good writing. Both are induced by the rule-structure of the advice.

My own preference would be to talk about X (and Y) and what it does and how it works in context. The dos and don'ts are redundant. You build your intuition on the facts rather than the value judgments and then you make your own judgements. IMO, you must make your own judgements as a writer. Always. It doesn't matter whether you're a beginner or a pro.

Clearly, you're building your very own rule-sets that way. "I like it when I do this, and readers agree, so I do this..." And clearly you can talk about what you do. But what works for you doesn't have to work for anyone else.

My attitude is this: rules don't really work as intermediate steps to learning, and they're redundant once you understand your subject matter. So it's better to find a way to talk about your subject matter without any dos and donts (though, perhaps, with I-dos and I-don'ts).

What is really important in terms of developing excellence in writing (which is a subjective beast) is to carefully pick the spots to go against the writing conventions, and to do so with a specific purpose. In other words, do so with the same care as is put into word selection and other aspects of prose construction. This is why it's so important to understand the conventions, so the specific times we choose to go against them are planned and used as tools to improve the story.

Because this author does it, or that author does it, is NEVER a good reason to go against one of the conventions. That's an excuse not a tool, and it does nothing to develop one's personal writing excellence. Saying "every word counts" is an umbrella that covers a number of writing techniques including the use or dismissal of the various contemporary writing conventions.

Dawnstorm said:

And in the meantime? You know, while writing? Follow them? Ignore them?

Click to expand...

Writing is the best way to learn. Besides reading, that is. Ask for critiques. Brutal ones. Grow a thick skin. And always, always, always strive to improve.

Ask yourself what's more important to you - your ego or the story?

Dawnstorm said:

...Now, looking at published stuff, and even looking at good published stuff, it's clear that these "rules" are sometimes followed, sometimes not.

Click to expand...

Indeed. And it's insanely infuriating, I know.

But, as Fizzy said, we shouldn't use this as an excuse to slack off ourselves.

Dawnstorm said:

What do we make of this? Easy! These aren't really rules, they're guidelines. All the good writers know them and are breaking them at their own discretion.

Click to expand...

Or it could be that certain authors have built a career on one big bestseller and have since become lazy. Yes, it happens. No, it doesn't mean you get to do it too.

Dawnstorm said:

So what do I do if I don't understand the rules? It looks like I'm in a bit of a pickle. On the one hand, I need to use my intuition when the rule applies and when it doesn't. But I don't trust my intuition, which is exactly why the rule-structure of the advice sounds appealing.

Click to expand...

Follow the rules until you're no longer relying on intuition. Follow the rules until you've mastered them.

Then you can break them, but only for conscious effect; not just 'because I can'.

Dawnstorm said:

Fretting: "Is it okay to...?" There's only one answer to that, really: "Write and see." That's the only way to learn. But the rule approach defers the "write and see." You need to know the rules to break them effectively. You're not good enough yet. So the rule-answer to "Is it okay to...?" would be: If you still have to ask the question, no, it's not.

Click to expand...

I would agree with you for the most part there.

However...a common question on AW is, "Is it okay to write swear words?"

Simple answer is: write what you like, then find an agent who isn't offended.

Then you have threads like, "Is it okay to use exclamation marks?" In such instances I would recommend keeping them to a bare minimum. Perhaps it's the same with swearing.

Learn, learn, learn and there will come a point where you're confident enough to break the rules.

Chances are by then you won't need to.

Dawnstorm said:

Stick to the letter: "Tell me how to identify X, so I can avoid it!" This one's just depressing. You've tagged a perfectly good structure with a negative feeling before you get to know what it does. That taints everything you learn about it.

Click to expand...

If anyone asks me, "Tell me how to identify X, Y or Z," I simply say this:

Read a frickin' book.

No writer will ever know it all. No, not even me! (Whoops, exclamation mark. Don't worry; I broke that rule consciously).

Some things in writing are recommended. Some are more rigid guidelines ("Limit your use of X, Y or Z.") Some are rules. With time and experience and effort you'll master them, or at least make them familiar enough for them to be second nature.

That's something I wanted to ask: Why the 'no exclamation marks' trend in writing?
Surely there are some instances in fiction where one definitely needs to use the marks?

*sigh*

Yes. There are often time when ! is necessary.

However, many writers use them too much, which is why we're encouraged to limit their use.

The dialogue itself should always be the first port of call if you want to emphasise speech, not tags or punctuation.

Ah, bugger...my entire literary output consists of bobbery, italics and exclamation marks.
And posh French phrases that I don't understand. Annnd then there's that show & tell thing...and the ellipses....and then there's the info dumps...and....

*carries on for three weeks*

Maybe you could ghost for Danielle Steel.

No way, chief, she writes about 30000 novels per week.
My mum collects them, which is why we needed a new wing built at Steve HQ.

Besides, Danielle's personal life reminds me of Malibu Stacey's from The Simpsons.

I see each rule as a pre-defined answer for a question of style.

I suspect that each rule arises from a few factors. First is that people often make mistakes on matters of style. And by "mistake" I mean that the writer's choice affects the reader in a way that the writer does not want. Style choices matter because they affect the reader.

The second factor is that given a set of style choices, some of the options are mistakes more often than others. For example, I'd say that the choice to use passive voice is a mistake more often than is the choice to use active voice. Rules don't tell you when each choice works best; instead, they merely play the odds by advising the choice that is "less likely" to be a mistake.

The trouble with the rules is that they don't account for context. Context strongly influences how a given style choice will affect the reader. Sometimes the adhering-to-the-rule choice has poor effect on the reader and the against-the-rule choice has a better effect.

It's probably true that blindly following the rules will lead to fewer mistakes than blindly breaking them. But those aren't your only choices. Better is to understand the style choices involved, especially the effects of those style choices on readers. Then ask yourself which effects you want right now, in the specific passage you're writing.

What are the possible effects of, say, passive voice? Passive voice draws attention away from the person who did the action. Sometimes passive voice avoids any mention of the actor. Sometimes passive voice focuses attention on the recipient of the action. So when you want one of those effects, use passive voice.

If I don't know who stole my car, "my car was stolen" is a perfectly fine even though it's passive. "Somebody stole my car" doesn't add any information. "Some son of a bitch stole my car" adds information about my attitude toward the theft. This changes the effect. Is it an effect I want? Maybe yes, maybe no.

And even if I know who stole the car, "Wilbur Krandlefrotz stole my car" isn't an improvement if my intent is to rail about the loss of my car. If I'm reporting the theft to the police, then yeah, I'll want to name Wilbur (the bastard).

Dale

NeuroFizz said:

Because this author does it, or that author does it, is NEVER a good reason to go against one of the conventions.

Click to expand...

Yes, but if you encounter "it" again and again in different books from different writers, maybe, it's time to go back and think and wonder whether "it" ever was a convention in the first place.

scarletpeaches said:

Writing is the best way to learn. Besides reading, that is. Ask for critiques. Brutal ones. Grow a thick skin. And always, always, always strive to improve.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Ask yourself what's more important to you - your ego or the story?

Click to expand...

I don't actually know whether that's a useful distinction. On the one hand I do agree, writing-wise: I've noticed that I get way too defensive early on but that some points keep simmering in the backbrain, and I end up seeing the point. So, yes, you shouldn't let your impulsive reactions dictate what ends up on the page. It's always a good idea to take the time to let it sink in.

But at the same time, you can't ignore that it's you who writes the story. Else, what's the point? I'm less talking as a writer here, and more as a reader who used to visit crit boards and found that too many texts took out what made the text interesting in favour of boring old "conventions". My impression was that tinkering with your text is hard, but following rules is easy. And since they're rules, you have the illusion of having improved.

But the problem with these impressions is that they're all based on my readerly judgment; I might just have an unpopular taste.

Rules are more tangible than taste. I think that's the secret of their success.

Indeed. And it's insanely infuriating, I know.

Click to expand...

But it isn't infuriating me. My reaction is simple: the rules are silly. *Shrug*

But, as Fizzy said, we shouldn't use this as an excuse to slack off ourselves.

Click to expand...

I don't advocate slacking off. But I'd like to find a way of learning to write that's more about investigative techniques than rules. The downside is that you'll never know whether your text is "good", and that, ultimately, you need your ego to fuel your confidence, if you're trying to get the story published.

However...a common question on AW is, "Is it okay to write swear words?"

Simple answer is: write what you like, then find an agent who isn't offended.

Then you have threads like, "Is it okay to use exclamation marks?" In such instances I would recommend keeping them to a bare minimum. Perhaps it's the same with swearing.

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. There are all sorts of different questions that take the "Is it okay to..." intro. And answers vary.

If anyone asks me, "Tell me how to identify X, Y or Z," I simply say this:

Read a frickin' book.

Click to expand...

It's kind of depressing, though, that the only reason they want to identify X, Y or Z is to avoid the elements in question. They should figure out how X, Y and Z work and use them "appropiately", where "appropriately" is a value judgement that's best left to their own tastes - and also to the tastes of the readers that matter to them.

Some things in writing are recommended. Some are more rigid guidelines ("Limit your use of X, Y or Z.") Some are rules. With time and experience and effort you'll master them, or at least make them familiar enough for them to be second nature.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but, see, the "Limit your use adverbs," rule, for example, is basically calling me a moron for enjoying Salman Rushdie. See my main problem here? Because of my reading experience I do not trust the rules in the first place. That doesn't mean I ignore them; I just think they may hurt as much as they help. It's a gamble.

Dale Emery said:

For example, I'd say that the choice to use passive voice is a mistake more often than is the choice to use active voice.

Click to expand...

So would I, and practically everybody would agree. Try to write a text predominantly in the passive voice. It's hard. Even in academic texts, I'm pretty sure, passive verbs don't exceed 30 % (I think; I can't find the numbers, but that's what I remember) - and that's a context where many style manuals recommend the passive voice. (Of course, these numbers are based on every verb, which includes verbs that don't have a passive version in the first place. So - to be fair - we should count only the verbs which could conceivably occur in both voices. I don't know of any studies that did that.)

In normal writing, the passive voice will never be the predominant voice. Not even if you're consciously trying to use it.

If you're saying, however, that most of the time when it occurrs to us to use the passive voice we probably shouldn't, then I'd argue that's not a given. And a lot depends on taste.

Dawnstorm said:

My reaction is simple: the rules are silly.

Click to expand...

Well that's your lookout. Whether they're silly or not, they're there. I can't say you'll never be published if you break the rules but it's certainly less likely.

Dawnstorm said:

I'd like to find a way of learning to write that's more about investigative techniques than rules.

Click to expand...

Read a lot. It's the most fun way to learn about writing that I can think of.

Dawnstorm said:

The downside is that you'll never know whether your text is "good"

Click to expand...

No one does, because 'good' is a matter of opinion.

The odds are stacked against you - against us all.

So let's assume there are things you can pay attention to, which would even things out just a tad.

Let's call those things...oh...rules.

We'd be foolish to decide, "I don't like 'em," and ignore them, wouldn't we? At least give them a chance.

Dawnstorm said:

...see, the "Limit your use adverbs," rule, for example, is basically calling me a moron for enjoying Salman Rushdie.

Click to expand...

No it isn't. It's advising you to limit your use of adverbs to ensure you really get to know when they're necessary or when they add flavour to the story.

It tends to be that if you tell a new writer "Adverbs are okay," they go overboard.

So just limit your use of them.

And I speak as someone who has a bookmark in The Enchantress of Florence as we speak.

But Sir Salman Rushdie gets away with it because...he is Sir Salman Rushdie. We are not.

Dawnstorm said:

Because of my reading experience I do not trust the rules in the first place.

Click to expand...

And because of my reading experience (I'm thirty-two which means I've been reading for thirty years) I do trust the rules.

Dawnstorm said:

If you're saying, however, that most of the time when it occurrs to us to use the passive voice we probably shouldn't, then I'd argue that's not a given. And a lot depends on taste.

Click to expand...

Passive voice is generally thought of as bad because it means things are being done to the subject, rather than the subject doing things to other people (or things).

I can sympathise with the frustration. There's an awful lot of 'don't's and 'never's in the writing game and there's nothing on Earth writers like to do more than to change another writer's copy, but...

The first novel I wrote, I wrote with a 'rules, bah, they're a straitjacket for creativity' attitude. It turned out, well, shite.

I still break rules when I write, but I usually know I'm breaking them, why I'm breaking them and why they exist in the first place. My writing's improved beyond recognition from that first novel and at least half of that improvement was down to getting over myself and accepting that maybe a lot of 'the rules' were there for good reason.

I do agree though that story trumps technique. I think most people here would say so. You probably can kill a good story by sweating the mechanics too much and personally, on the first draft I run crazy and I always keep that crazy draft as it was so I can refer back to it and make sure I haven't killed some fire and fun by editing it into sterility.

scarletpeaches said:

Well that's your lookout. Whether they're silly or not, they're there. I can't say you'll never be published if you break the rules but it's certainly less likely.

Click to expand...

Of course, that's just my outlook. But it's not an outlook I developed by ignoring them. Trust me, I examine each and everyone I encounter. It's just that they rarely measure up.

Read a lot. It's the most fun way to learn about writing that I can think of.

Click to expand...

See, reading a lot is exactly what gets me to distrust the rules. They don't measure up against what's out there (as I see it).

No one does, because 'good' is a matter of opinion.

The odds are stacked against you - against us all.

So let's assume there are things you can pay attention to, which would even things out just a tad.

Let's call those things...oh...rules.

We'd be foolish to decide, "I don't like 'em," and ignore them, wouldn't we? At least give them a chance.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't ignore them. I could write a book about the "Don't use the passive voice" rule. How it's in Strunk & White. How it's in Orwell's "Politics and the English language". How it's applied to verbs that are not in the passive voice (this is where a stylistic concept conflicts with a grammatical one). How the verb semantics clash with syntax. The confusion between "theta roles" (agent, patient, experiencer...) and "verb direction" (my term: many grammarians use "agent" for "experiencer" when they're talking about voice). About "being vague" (and how you can be vague in the active voice, and probably should be as the passive doesn't fool anyone anymore). And so on... Would anyone read that even though it's full of technical shit, and in the end they'd have to make up their own minds anyway?

I couldn't write a book about "Don't use adverbs," yet. I haven't paid enough attention to that one yet.

I'm not ignoring them because I don't like them. I don't like them because they're either too vague, or because they don't seem to fit the facts (= the books that end up published).

No it isn't. It's advising you to limit your use of adverbs to ensure you really get to know when they're necessary or when they add flavour to the story.

It tends to be that if you tell a new writer "Adverbs are okay," they go overboard.

So just limit your use of them.

Click to expand...

Hm, interesting. Kind of like: "Try writing without adverbs and spot the difference." It does make sense as a set of instructions for a writing excercise. But that's again different from "guidlines".

Interesting angle, though. Worth thinking about.

And I speak as someone who has a bookmark in The Enchantress of Florence as we speak.

Click to expand...

*Google* "Reads amazon excerpt* Now I want to read that. Fairy-taly rather than chatty. Intriguing. Less adverbs than Midnight's Children. Style difference. There's an article in that.

I notice Enchantress won the Booker.

But Sir Salman Rushdie gets away with it because...he is Sir Salman Rushdie. We are not.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and you should get away with it because you're Scarletpeaches. (Where "it" is whatever you're supposed to get away with.) When I'm reading your book and I don't want to think of "Strunk & White". (This happened more than once. Er, not with you, since I haven't read anything of yours yet. But you get the point. Or maybe not. I tend to confuse people at times.)

And because of my reading experience (I'm thirty-two which means I've been reading for thirty years) I do trust the rules.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that. I hope you don't think I'm calling you "silly" for trusting the rules which I call "silly". It's just that I'd like to pin-point the difference (and your post helped a little).

Passive voice is generally thought of as bad because it means things are being done to the subject, rather than the subject doing things to other people (or things).

Click to expand...

Yes, and because it's more wordy than the active voice. And because it's vague about agency. And... and... and...

Maybe I should write the book about passive voice...

Nah.

Not here, anyway.

MetalDog said:

I do agree though that story trumps technique.

Click to expand...

Not me, though. I find technique incredibly important. Actually, I think that might be exactly why I object to the "rules". They generally leave story alone and mess with technique only. Hmm...

I think you should understand why the rules exist and keep the ones you agree with. Saying using adverbs is okay because Rushdie uses them is just as bad as saying using adverbs is not okay because it's against the rules. What works for Salman Rushdie may not work for you. And not everything he does is good. Maybe his novels would be even better with fewer adverbs, who knows. So try and understand why lots of writers don't like adverbs. Maybe you'll agree with them, maybe not, but at least you'll understand what they're trying to tell you with their rules.

kuwisdelu said:

I prefer to think of them more like guidelines, like the Pirate Code. And of course, to break them, you need to understand where they come from and why they're there.

Click to expand...

Originally posted by Captain Jack Sparrow: The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do.

Click to expand...

It's art. Sometimes breaking the rules is an art form all its own.

As a writer, you decide which approach to art you are taking and you make up your own rules. Just like a painter might say, In this piece I will use no red, white, blue or black and I will use rolling pins instead of paintbrushes.

Just like the people who write books without the letter E or absolutely no dialogue tags or adjectives, or who never give their MC a name.
Rules are subjective to the environment and the artist who creates the environment.

Here's a nifty rule: Do whatever you want.

Here's another nifty rule: Agents and editors will choose to read and represent what THEY want.

Sometimes the two meet. Sometimes they don't. The agent/editor rule, btw, seems inviolate, but there are those who still want to claim they can break that rule.

Argue the semantics of the general rules for writing all you want...it boils down to how brilliantly you do whatever it is you do, and if anyone out there agrees that it's genius.

Mad Queen said:

Saying using adverbs is okay because Rushdie uses them is just as bad as saying using adverbs is not okay because it's against the rules. What works for Salman Rushdie may not work for you.

Click to expand...

*Sigh*

I'm not saying that Rushdie legitimises adverbs; I'm saying that if you're looking at what's out there the only valid conclusion that does not patronise a young writer is that different writers use different amounts of adverbs, and that the same authors use different amounts of adverbs in different books. Another example? I once compared adverb frequency (unsystematically) in Will Self's The Book of Dave, and Julian Barnes' Arthur and George. Barnes used a moderate amount of adverbs; Will Self used hardly any. The style differed. But number of adverbs was no adequate measure for my enjoyment of the text.

I'm saying that the rule doesn't measure up. Not that the opposite rule is true. That would be just another silly rule.

And not everything he does is good. Maybe his novels would be even better with fewer adverbs, who knows. So try and understand why lots of writers don't like adverbs.

Click to expand...

I quoted Rushdie in an adverb thread before - as an example of adverb use I like. Blacbird (I think) called it unreadable. I respect that. Enjoyment of a text is not objective; you can't codify it into rules. But you can, I think, figure out why I like a section that blacbird considers unreadable. Trying to do that would be valuable. But you can't do that on the basis of a rule that's pretty much phrased to give the advantage to blacbird's position. (Apologies to blacbird, if I confused him with someone else.)

Here's the problem as I see it. We can always find a big name who is adverb-happy. We can easily find ten, twenty. But two things are not mentioned in these searches. First, there is no count of the authors who don't let adverbs creep into their writing, which is probably the vast majority of published authors out there. That is how something like the adverb "rule" comes into being despite the relative few who do otherwise. Second is the one that we are all trying to drum into the consciousness of new and developing writers out here. Many (probably most) agents and editors will not look kindly on manuscripts that are full of adverbs. Period. Agents have commented on this very thing in their interviews and blogs. Experts who write how-to-write books highlight this very thing over and over again (because of how it has evolved into a contemporary convention).

Write however you want. It's your story, and each and every one of you are developing your own writing styles, as y'all should. We're suggesting that the best way to get published is to avoid things that are widely reported by writing professionals as suggesting amateur, sloppy, archaic, or just plain lazy writing. It's not fair that established writers can get away with some of these things, but that is just how it is. It's also true that if a writer has one of those special stories that immediately grabs an agent or editor by the throat, the writing style will be forgiven. But even then, the publishing house's editors likely will have something to say about it when it comes time to get the manuscript ready for publication.

Dawnstorm said:

I'm not saying that Rushdie legitimises adverbs; I'm saying that if you're looking at what's out there the only valid conclusion that does not patronise a young writer is that different writers use different amounts of adverbs, and that the same authors use different amounts of adverbs in different books.

Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter one bit that different writers use different amounts of adverbs. A lot of writers don't like them and they'll teach what they know based on what they believe is best for other writers. They are not trying to curtail your creativity and their rules are not arbitrary -- there's a reason behind each of them. If you know the reason but don't agree, then keep using adverbs. But 'I like Rushdie's use of adverbs' is not a good argument. It's even worse than 'Just follow the rules. Don't use adverbs.' Do you know what is Rushdie's reason for using adverbs?