Great article for new writers (or writers who think they've nailed it but haven't)

Pepper · Oct 28, 2009

Roger MacBride Allen talks about common mistakes in writing. It's nothing we haven't all heard before, but Roger explains everything so thoroughly I feel it deserves a good read. And to all of us who say there should be no rules in writing, he makes this final statement:

A final rule of thumb: Understand the rules, and know how and why to follow the rules, before you attempt to break them.

http://www.sfwa.org/2005/01/mistakes-in-writing/

I apologise to those who have read this before- I'm aware the article has been around a while.

scarletpeaches · Oct 28, 2009

Haven't seen this before, so you've reached one person who's seeing this for the first time anyway! Ta muchly.

Bubastes · Oct 28, 2009

I haven't seen this before either. Great article. Thank you!

Wayne K · Oct 28, 2009

Very good read, thank you.

Mara · Oct 28, 2009

Thanks!

BigWords · Oct 28, 2009

Show-Off Experiments are a bad thing? Damn. I'm changing the unnamed character from Adolf Hitler to Winston Churchill...

Thanks for finding this, Pepper.

Matera the Mad · Oct 28, 2009

Ah, so many should read that *sigh*

Perks · Oct 28, 2009

I tremble if anything in this article is particularly enlightening. Truth told, I tremble a lot.

Not a great fan of the self-congratulatory tone, either, but if the article as a whole is a help, then it's a help. Help is good.

Pepper · Oct 29, 2009

No probs guys, I'm glad you're finding it helpful!

Pepper · Oct 29, 2009

Perks said:
Not a great fan of the self-congratulatory tone

I didn't detect any 'tone', but I'm naive that way... ^_^

Mara · Oct 29, 2009

Perks said:
I tremble if anything in this article is particularly enlightening.

I will say it's pretty basic stuff. (Heck, I already knew that stuff, and I'm a novice.) But it's still very useful as a reminder and a link to send to even newer writers. It's a nice confidence booster. Some of the tips aren't new, but they're important enough to bear repeating over and over.

Also, I guess my novel is fine because it's only fifty pages until we know the protagonist's name, and we get hints that it's a famous evil dictator, but it turns out to be Iosef Stalin, not Adolf Hitler. (I kid, I kid! But now I'm tempted to write a very short parody where Stalin is angry that Hitler is in so many crappy stories.)

Perks · Oct 29, 2009

Pepper said:
I didn't detect any 'tone', but I'm naive that way... ^_^

Meh. It's hard to say. For some reason the article is off-putting to me, but it might be me that's the reason.

I've got the grump. It's mostly not contagious.

dpaterso · Oct 29, 2009

Methinks that article always had a tone -- that of the weary Sci-Fi editor/writing teacher who has seen these mistakes all too often and prays for a swift death rather than having to see them all again and again...

-Derek

StephenP · Oct 30, 2009

Sometimes I wonder how on earth anyone who calls himself a writer would not know these things. But then I go back several years in my mind and remember the stories I wrote that were 100% allegory, or the word-paintings that I thought were stories, or the weak plots that relied solely on a twist ending -- or hell, not even a twist; more like a punchline.

I'm glad that, besides the typos, nothing in that article took me by surprise.

Dawnstorm · Oct 30, 2009

Once again the anti-passive-voice prejudice is spread. By an editor, no less. (<-- See? It is someone's fault. Prominently, so. Set off by punctuation to drive the point home.)

For once, I'd like people to say:

"Understand the rules, and know how and why to follow the rules, before you attempt to follow them."

I'm convinced that unreflected rule-following is worse to writing fiction than unreflected rule-breaking. For the latter, you at least have a core of intuition. For the former, all you have is obedience.

Mara · Oct 30, 2009

Dawnstorm said:
Once again the anti-passive-voice prejudice is spread. By an editor, no less. (<-- See? It is someone's fault. Prominently, so. Set off by punctuation to drive the point home.)

For once, I'd like people to say:

"Understand the rules, and know how and why to follow the rules, before you attempt to follow them."

I'm convinced that unreflected rule-following is worse to writing fiction than unreflected rule-breaking. For the latter, you at least have a core of intuition. For the former, all you have is obedience.

Yeah, but that editor also specifically said that passive voice works in some situations, and not to always follow the rules.

MissAimee · Oct 30, 2009

I never read it. Thank you.

Dawnstorm · Oct 30, 2009

Mara said:
Yeah, but that editor also specifically said that passive voice works in some situations, and not to always follow the rules.

They always do. And they rarely tell you how to spot the difference between good and bad passives. Which should be the core of such advice.

Count me unimpressed.

Rebekah7 · Oct 30, 2009

Dawnstorm said:
Once again the anti-passive-voice prejudice is spread. By an editor, no less. (<-- See? It is someone's fault. Prominently, so. Set off by punctuation to drive the point home.)

For once, I'd like people to say:

"Understand the rules, and know how and why to follow the rules, before you attempt to follow them."

I'm convinced that unreflected rule-following is worse to writing fiction than unreflected rule-breaking. For the latter, you at least have a core of intuition. For the former, all you have is obedience.

That takes too long. You can't be a writer in ten easy steps if you actually have to make mistakes and learn from them.

Mara · Oct 30, 2009

Dawnstorm said:
They always do. And they rarely tell you how to spot the difference between good and bad passives. Which should be the core of such advice.

Count me unimpressed.

I'll give you that one.

Dawnstorm · Oct 30, 2009

Rebekah7 said:
That takes too long. You can't be a writer in ten easy steps if you actually have to make mistakes and learn from them.

Tee hee hee. Well, I'm a bit unkind. I actually also think that you can't understand the "rules" without following them. You need to do stuff to understand it. So in the end it's probably not all that important how you phrase your to-dos.

And learning will take the time it takes, no matter what path you follow. I'm just wary of will-o'-the-wisps. And that's because I'm me. Always complaining too much...

Mara said:
I'll give you that one.

Thanks. But I sound like a broken record, too. If people find this article useful, who am I to jump in and spoil the party?

It's true that this sort of article continually fails to impress me. But do I always have to sound the chorus? Shouldn't I just shut up until I have something constructive to say?

Steam&Ink · Oct 30, 2009

Dawnstorm said:
I'm convinced that unreflected rule-following is worse to writing fiction than unreflected rule-breaking. For the latter, you at least have a core of intuition. For the former, all you have is obedience.

Second that! If the rules have good reasons behind them, then let's talk about those reasons. I'm not up for a mantra to chant, I want justification.

Unfortunately, it's common for writers (and notice I'm not adding "new" before "writers") to have the attitude: I don't know much, but I know NOT TO USE THE PASSIVE, or I know NAMING CHAPTERS IS PASSE, or I know TO SHOW, NOT TELL

Well, that's great. Good for you. Now if you can explain why, I'm might actually engage in a coversation with you...

ETA: Oh, and now that I've finished ranting, I do think these articles are good to read through now and then, to get us thinking about it. thanks for posting the link.

Steam&Ink · Oct 30, 2009

Dawnstorm said:
Shouldn't I just shut up until I have something constructive to say?

Wouldn't that be very... passive?

Pepper · Oct 30, 2009

steampunkette said:
If the rules have good reasons behind them, then let's talk about those reasons.

.......... Because 97% of the time when writers don't "follow the rules" at least to some degree, their writing is complete and utter shit on a stick?

Is that a good enough reason?

I think people, like Roger, who write these articles are writing the article because they've had it up to here *points above head* with shitty writing. They know those writers have potential if only they were pointed in the right direction. Logic would say that if you do the opposite to what made your manuscript hopeless drivel, it might actually be good.

I thought that this was a given. Am I missing something? Keep this thread going, I want to see some points of view on writing articles like this one. :Lecture:

Steam&Ink · Oct 30, 2009

Pepper said:
.......... Because 97% of the time when writers don't "follow the rules" at least to some degree, their writing is complete and utter shit on a stick?

Is that a good enough reason?

not reeeeallllly..... basically that's just repeating the mantra, "following rules equals good, disobeying rules equals bad".

And while I agree with your point that those that routinely break the rules might have "shit on a stick" writing (a delightful mental image!), I still agree with Dawnstorm: writers who memorise these rules and don't look at the whys and wherefores, are not actually learning anything about their craft. It might get better, but they don't know why.

Maybe it's just because I am a geek and like to know why.

I still liked the article, and do read these things, so, you know... maybe just playing the Devil's Avocado

Great article for new writers (or writers who think they've nailed it but haven't)

I IS PRANCING

bananaed

Clever User Title

Geekzilla

Bartender, gimme a Linux Mint

delicate #!&@*#! flower

I IS PRANCING

I IS PRANCING

Clever User Title

delicate #!&@*#! flower

Also in our Discord and IRC chat channels

empty calories

punny user title, here

Clever User Title

A wannabe writer who lives in a land of confusion

punny user title, here

Unofficial Jester

Clever User Title

punny user title, here

sekrit superhero

sekrit superhero

I IS PRANCING

sekrit superhero