Looking around on here has brought back to my mind many of what I call the "old saws" of writing, the "rules" so to speak. Personally I feel that, to quote Captain Barbossa, they are more like guidlines than actual rules. And I guess that is somewhat assumed...but not always.

Some of these would include:

"Show don't tell."

Active voice is inherently preferable to passive voice.

The reader should know what the character knows.

Etc (feel free to add more for discussion.)

Now these are all good guidlines, and some of them are generally going to be best to follow. However, I think some of these "rules" and the different admonishments we recieve as writers are, to a large extent, stylistic choices as much as anything. And that, of course, in the end they are servants of the greater goal-telling the story.

Also, something I find ironic...one of the things I see most frequently in submission guidlines is a desire for new, original, different material..and yet, at the same time as writers we are encouraged, and by some more or less demanded to follow these "saws", which, when applied to vigorously are likely to be somewhat counter to originality.

Keep attributing tags as close to invisible (he said; she said) as possible.

quote:

---

Also, something I find ironic...one of the things I see most frequently in submission guidlines is a desire for new, original, different material..and yet, at the same time as writers we are encouraged, and by some more or less demanded to follow these "saws", which, when applied to vigorously are likely to be somewhat counter to originality.

---

quote:

---

Whenever possible, use strong verbs instead of adverbs.

---

My grammar lingo isnt good enough to actually know for sure what this means. Is this the "no "angrily" type thing?

This, and the other two, are pretty irefutable, and to me more like just basic grammar and writing rules needed just to be understood.

Let me throw out a couple---which is hard 'cause I've spent a lot of time learning them, internalizing them---then forgetting them:

"Write from the viewpoint of the character who is most affected by the events of the story."

quote:

---

Think of it like the blues. 1, 4, 5 over and over in every song. It's how you make it your own that makes it great.

---

Hmm. Well, my dad is a blues guitarist, and actually recently left a band due to the other members tendecy to discourage improvisation.

What your saying is true of course, but when your talking about already subjective things like artforms...I still think the "rules" more or less have to be guidlines...and that breaking or ignoring them can often lead to pleasant and interesting innovations.

To me, it still seems to send a somewhat mixed message especially to new writers.

quote:

---

"Go for the smaller word over the larger."

---

This is a perfect example of what I mean. This, I think, depends on the nature of the line. In descpretion and narration, this is pretty much going to be true, most times. Although even then, it depends on the mood you are going for.

quote:

---

Yes, going against the guidelines can lead to amazing things. Most often, though, it leads to poor writing. Just as I wouldn't try to improvise a guitar solo without first becoming a solid guitar player, I don't try to go against the rules of writing because I don't feel that I have mastered them enough to break them.

---

Nothing is acceptable if it is done poorly.

quote:

---

What your saying is true of course, but when your talking about already subjective things like artforms...I still think the "rules" more or less have to be guidlines...and that breaking or ignoring them can often lead to pleasant and interesting innovations.

To me, it still seems to send a somewhat mixed message especially to new writers.

---

From one novice writer to another...

The only reason breaking guidelines is mentioned to new writers is to give them a preface for their future work as a professional.

When I was in college I can't tell you how many charcoal still life drawings I was forced to create. Pears, apples, small statues, mirrors, lamps, vases - oh god the vases!

This, as you probably know, became the basis for any other art I did in college. The rules I learned from those brown sheets of paper and late nights looking at a lamp with a cloth draped over it directly applied to any water colors, oils, graphic designs or airbrushes created in my later years.

I'm going to reiterate what everyone else has said: know your basics. Everything else is just applying your voice and style, in other words, the easy part.

Not only should you know your basics you should be constantly working on them. For every three pieces an aspiring author creates at least one of them should be pure formula. Personally I would flip that around and say two out of three pieces should be formula and the other should be 'art'.

This is how all other forms of art handle the creative aspect. You do the basics until your fingers bleed and then if you still have time left over. Doing the basics should be a common activity, it should be your way of letting off steam.

quote:

---

The only reason breaking guidelines is mentioned to new writers is to give them a preface for their future work as a professional.

---

Perhaps. But, first of all...I dont make that much distinction between "professional" and...anything else. All that "professional" means is being paid for it.

Like I said, I just find it a bit ironic that markets put such emphasis on originality, and not doing whats been done before, while in the same breath the world of literature makes a very big deal, some times, of its "old saws."

quote:

---

I'm going to reiterate what everyone else has said: know your basics. Everything else is just applying your voice and style, in other words, the easy part.

---

I'm not really talking about the knowing of them. What I mean is more akin to what Doctor says above you. I say this: If a piece, or a line, or whatever, works, who cares if it breaks the "rules" or not?

And, moreover...if a piece or line or whatever that breaks the rules doesnt work, while one certainly considers that "unbreaking" them may be helpful, that may or may not be the actual source of the problem.

quote:

---

Not only should you know your basics you should be constantly working on them. For every three pieces an aspiring author creates at least one of them should be pure formula. Personally I would flip that around and say two out of three pieces should be formula and the other should be 'art'.

---

Eh. Personally, I'm not really able to seperate the two. I'm a storyteller, and storytelling is storytelling.

I understand exactly what you mean though, and your right. For me though, its not an issue of "forumla" or "craft" versus "art", its just a matter of levels of difficulty and complexity. Of course, doing comparitively simple, straightforward pieces is a good way to develop the basic, backbone skills.

quote:

---

Do you have any favorite authors?

---

I dont really pick favorites much. I'd say the three writers, probably, that have influenced me most would be Lovecraft, Stephen King, and Tolkien. Well, and Ray Bradbury. And Ursula K. LeGuin. I like a lot of authors. Also, since I dont really make distinctions between forms of storytelling, music and cinematic stories also have a big influence on me.

quote:

---

I dont really pick favorites much. I'd say the three writers, probably, that have influenced me most would be Lovecraft, Stephen King, and Tolkien. Well, and Ray Bradbury. And Ursula K. LeGuin. I like a lot of authors.

---

Then Stephen King's On Writing or Ray Bradbury's Zen in the Art of Writing might be a good read for you.

quote:

---

not that I'm averse to it, but I'm mostly looking to discuss the nature of these ideas be the seen as rules, guidlines, or just stylistic choices.

---

Sounds fun to me, how about this:

quote:

---

Pick a specific rule, show an example of how breaking it works, and we'll discuss it. Right now there isn't much to discuss because the rules are so varied.

---

Its not as much an issue of breaking them.

Let me see if I can illustrate what I mean.

"Cat" is spelled C-A-T in English. If you try to spell it R-I-V or some other way, nobody is going to know what you mean. Its an extreme example, but that sort of thing, the basics of language, are what to me qualify as "rules."

On the other hand, some of the "saws" we're presented with dont have that level of elementary depth. Take things like "avoid passive voice" and "show, don't tell." "breaking" these rules is generally not in any way going to break the rules of the language, or prevent a reader from understanding you. Now yes, often staying within them makes things sound "better", but "better" is often a subjective concept. These sorts of guidlines are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Lets say your going for a sort of old fashioned Middle Ages chronicle sort of feel. In this case, for example, using a more "telling" style of writing may well enhance the mood and style your going for. Same thing with passive voice.

On that note, a question: Does anyone here know when any of these guidlines started being taught to writers and the like? The "show don't tell" and passive voice rules are especially of interest to me. I may have it wrong, but it feels somewhat as though these are seen as archaic forms of speech or writing, and frowned on in modern writing partly for that reason.

quote:

---

Take things like "avoid passive voice" and "show, don't tell." "breaking" these rules is generally not in any way going to break the rules of the language, or prevent a reader from understanding you. Now yes, often staying within them makes things sound "better", but "better" is often a subjective concept. These sorts of guidlines are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Lets say your going for a sort of old fashioned Middle Ages chronicle sort of feel. In this case, for example, using a more "telling" style of writing may well enhance the mood and style your going for. Same thing with passive voice.

---

You still haven't gotten anywhere specific. This is all high level but has no grounding.

Here, start with "show don't tell". Do you have an example where, in your opinion, the writing is "better" by avoiding this rule?

I think what you call "high level" I call conceptual or intuitive, and thats mostly where my mind tends to operate.

quote:

---

Anything is acceptable if it is done well.
Nothing is acceptable if it is done poorly.

All other rules can be broken or bent to satisfy the above two.

---

quote:

---

Apparently, I'm in the minority, which is fine. I was just curious.

---

That's not it at all. You just haven't said anything. Every form of art, from line dancing to jazz music, have rules. All of these rules can be broken.

Here's an example. That short story is one of my favorites and it breaks all the "rules". However the author knew enough about the rules to know how to break them.

quote:

---

Here's an example. That short story is one of my favorites and it breaks all the "rules". However the author knew enough about the rules to know how to break them.

---

That was definitely interesting. Seemed kind of like a long (and funny) joke more than anything to me, but definitely interesting.

quote:

---

So yeah, I bet everyone here all agree with the sentiment "all rules are made to be broken". Sure...

---

Well, everyone definitely agrees that its fine for a writer who's done it for a long time and "knows how" to break the "rules" to great effect. But, what about the notion that several of the "rules" arent really rules, that breaking them is not inherently relevent, and that some of them in many cases are not much different from chosing synonym over another?

quote:

---

Well, everyone definitely agrees that its fine for a writer who's done it for a long time and "knows how" to break the "rules" to great effect. But, what about the notion that several of the "rules" arent really rules, that breaking them is not inherently relevent, and that some of them in many cases are not much different from chosing synonym over another?

---

quote:

---

How about a different angle: Why do you think these rules are pressed on new writers?

---

I think that depends on who's doing the pressing. Some times its entirely well intentioned...and useful. But, I think our culture has developed a strong tendency to turn means to ends into ends in themselves.

So, I think there are to main ways. They may be imparted as guidlines to someone who is just learning storytelling. Or they may be imparted as absolutes because someone has decided its a good rule, and good rules should always be followed.

How about this: If you were an english teacher, and a student submitted to you a short piece for an assignment that had a passage that broke one of these rules we're discussing, but still worked and felt fine, what would you do?

quote:

---

If you were an english teacher, and a student submitted to you a short piece for an assignment that had a passage that broke one of these rules we're discussing, but still worked and felt fine, what would you do?

---

I'd need an example. Just saying "it felt fine" doesn't do it for me. Like my above example these rules can be broken. If the writer looked like they knew what they were doing I wouldn't need to mention it. Even new writers can break these rules willingly.

However, if the passage was something like:

The killer had walked through the back door. Julie was then stabbed in the chest by the killer's knife.

Then yeah, I'd mention it.

quote:

---

They may be imparted as guidlines to someone who is just learning storytelling

---

...and why do you think they are guidelines to new writers?

quote:

---

I'd need an example. Just saying "it felt fine" doesn't do it for me. Like my above example these rules can be broken. If the writer looked like they knew what they were doing I wouldn't need to mention it. Even new writers can break these rules willingly.[/quoite]

And even mentioning it probably isnt a bad idea, just because its more information. But what about those...and I know they exist...english teachers that would give the piece a bad grade, because it "broke the rules?"

[quote]and why do you think they are guidelines to new writers?

---

Um...because its information that can some times be helpful?

I can distill this argument's solution into a sentence:

Write how you want to write, but don't whine about the rejections that pile up for breaking common "rules" or using cliches.

quote:

---

It seems this wasn't an honest inquiry to what hatrackers feel should be used as guidelines so much as it is an argument against what rules we choose to name.

---

It never claimed to be an inquiry into what should be used as guidlines. It claimed to be an open discussion of writing "saws" and "rules", and if inquiry into anything it was into wether others some times felt like, in practice, many such rules are more like simply choices.

But, the assumption you just made is why I had doubts about even trying to start such an open discussion. I guess perhaps I shouldnt have.

When I started getting in the ring and fighting for real, it didn't take me long to learn that doing it my way resulted in me getting hit hard and frequently without doing much damage to my opponent. When I did it the "right" way, miraculously, I held my own and started to win.

Some boxers are so preternaturally fast, or strong, or agile, that they can do some things their own way. But most boxers have learned through hard experience over a long period of time that there really is one specific way to do things that works better in almost every circumstance.

When you're in third grade and you write a report on what happened over the summer, you say something like:

We went to the beach. But it was too cold to swim. And then we went to the ice cream store. And then we went home.

And the teacher says to never start a sentence with "and" or "but." We internalize that rule and tell others to follow it.

BUT, Mr. Garner pulled out editorials from several current magazines and newspapers with leadoff "buts" and "ands" circled in red. There were a bunch. He says 10 percent of your sentences in persuasive writing should start with "and" or "but."

What's the deal, he asked. The deal is that third graders don't quickly understand the subtleties of writing and it's easier for the the teacher to just say "don't."

The same goes for something like "Me and Bobby went swimming." The teacher says to always say "Bobby and I." So you hear an otherwise articulate speaker say, "The water seemed cold to Bobby and I." And he thinks he's following the rules.

You hear "show, don't tell," because beginning writers tend to mostly tell. But sometimes telling is appropriate, if you know how to do it right.

Cheers,

quote:

---

no one here seems to be interested in discourse for its own sake

---

Discourse for its own sake, no. Discourse that shares knowledge and encourages better writing--or simply encourages writing--yes.

And halogen, thanks from me also for the meat link.

quote:

---

Discourse for its own sake, no. Discourse that shares knowledge and encourages better writing--or simply encourages writing--yes

---

I've discovered that most people who are so determined to break the rules for a reason, don't understand the rules at all. Instead of getting a book about it, or asking others who do understand it how it works, they tend to go on and on about how it is ok for them to not follow it...and could someone please give them a reason to continue doing so.

Why do people keep saying things like "show don't tell"? Simply because a story that is told is boring compared to one that is shown. Why should you not hide information from the reader that the pov character knows? It makes the reader angry with you, and could possible cause them to put down your story and add your name to the never again list.

The 'rules' have a purpose, and that purpose is to help new writers learn how to write stories that other people will want to read. You have every right to provide an excuse for a badly written story, but the excuse will not change anyone else's mind about how much they don't want to read it. This is the reason there are all those horrid rules that are thrown about over and over again. It's to try and help people write better.

If you learn all those rules, not just what they are, but how to write within them, you will find that they all lead to writing that is almost invisible to the reader. The words take a back seat to the story playing out in the mind of the reader, and at the end of it, the reader does not leave it with any opinion of the words...only the story the words told. The greatest compliment I can ever get is when someone tells me they never noticed the words, only the story. That should be the goal of all writing, to keep the reader from noticing how it is written, in favor of how enjoyable the story was.

quote:

---

I've spent the last five years or so learning to write within the rules...actually, I'm still learning about some of them I only recently figured out in the past year. Still, here at hatrack I've watched countless questions about why the rules are important, and why does anyone have to follow them.

---

For the record, what I am asking is more about their nature (as in, are they truly "rules", guidlines, or simply choices)then why people have to follow them. Its already been established that they dont have to be followed...almost everyone here has agreed that at the very least, experienced writers can and do break them to great effect.

quote:

---

Why do people keep saying things like "show don't tell"? Simply because a story that is told is boring compared to one that is shown

---

I beg to differ. I am greatly enjoying re-reading the Silmarillion, which mostly tells rather than showing (though I realize its not quite a typical narrative.) I also enjoy Lovecraft very much, and as I understand the concept, he does a bit of "telling" as well.

quote:

---

The 'rules' have a purpose, and that purpose is to help new writers learn how to write stories that other people will want to read.

---

Yes. But what if they become the purpose, the end themselves rather than the means to an end? As you say, the purpose is the creation of stories that people want to read and enjoy reading. But since its been established that that can be achieved...even enhanced..by the breaking of these "rules", doesnt it seem like it might be a good idea to teach them to new writers as guidlines, rather than edicts?

quote:

---

If you learn all those rules, not just what they are, but how to write within them, you will find that they all lead to writing that is almost invisible to the reader. The words take a back seat to the story playing out in the mind of the reader, and at the end of it, the reader does not leave it with any opinion of the words...only the story the words told. The greatest compliment I can ever get is when someone tells me they never noticed the words, only the story. That should be the goal of all writing, to keep the reader from noticing how it is written, in favor of how enjoyable the story was.

---

But what about people who enjoy both? I love the sorts of stories you describe, but also those that can be enjoyed for the words and their uses and interaction. Tolkien and Lovecraft are often accused of being too wordy, and yet I and many others love their works.

Everyone is different in their tastes. And art is subjective, not objective. So to me, almost any "rules" about it must in reality be guidlines.

quote:

---

I dont see why everything has to be highly structured, formal, and specific.

---

Because we're trying to become professional writers. Writing is a discipline, approached through debate and understanding of structure and specifics.

As for formal, well, if being courteous--mindful of the Hatrack way of critting per the FAQ, and respectful of the rules with which Kathleen moderates--is formal, so be it.

Hatrack has helped many, many writers become successful. Why not take advantage of all the experience here? Experience that says, for example, don't discuss too much with critters, just consider their suggestions and revise.

Why not try using some of the guidelines? Perhaps challenging yourself to revise every "tell" in a story with a "show". If you do, you'll find, as we all did at some stage or other, how and why the "rules" work, and when they can safely be ignored. "Discussing" them will not get you to that happy place, IMHO.

It seems to me that in "discussing" them you're looking for other (aspiring) writers to agree they're wrong, or a matter of taste, to justify not learning them, not changing your work in any significant fashion. I truly think these discussions help you to avoid learning and improvement in any significant fashion, just as another aspiring writer said here:

http://www.hatrack.com/forums/writers/forum/Forum1/HTML/001622.html

quote:

---

But what about people who enjoy both? I love the sorts of stories you describe, but also those that can be enjoyed for the words and their uses and interaction. Tolkien and Lovecraft are often accused of being too wordy, and yet I and many others love their works.

---

To me, the Simerillian is a history book of middle earth, not really a story. One of the reasons I couldn't enjoy it was because it only told a history of an imaginary world, and that didn't interest me.

While I guess there is a market for that style of writing, I fear you may find it not as big as the market for simply good stories.

quote:

---

If you do, you'll find, as we all did at some stage or other, how and why the "rules" work, and when they can safely be ignored.

---

Trouble is, in the end, this is a matter of opinion. Many literary critics consider Harry Potter to be crap for one reason or another or due to the breaking of one rule or other, and yet its highly successful. Rsearch enough and chances are for any example you may cite of a successful writer "successfully" breaking the rules, you'll find some "qualified" person who disagrees.

quote:

---

"Discussing" them will not get you to that happy place, IMHO.

---

And I respect your opinion. But, as I've mentioned before more or less every single experience in my life as a writer has taught me the exact oposite.

There is room for more than one way of doing things, and they can all work, some for some people, others for others.

quote:

---

It seems to me that in "discussing" them you're looking for other (aspiring) writers to agree they're wrong, or a matter of taste, to justify not learning them, not changing your work in any significant fashion.

---

The intent..and for me, almost always, the result...is the exact oposite. I realize though, that most of the people here through no fault of their own and maybe or maybe not any "fault" of mine, are mispercieving my aproach. But, I am totally new to this way of doing things, and I'm attempting to find a happy medium..where i can get some good out of things, without causing people undue distress.

I apreciate your continueing to try and help me with that adjustment. I'm telling you now that I AM listening and I DO apreciate it. Can you see, understand or feel any of what I'm saying or where I'm coming from? Like I said above, there are many different ways of doing things, just like there are many different personalities.

quote:

---

Because we're trying to become professional writers.

---

As am I. But, more than anything, I am trying to improve my stories, and my storytelling, as what they are. I could, can, do and will choose to write in a way that is consiously intended to be more marketable or whatever, but my first priority is telling the stories that exist in my head, as they seem to need to be told.

quote:

---

Writing is a discipline, approached through debate and understanding of structure and specifics.

---

Yes it is. However, at the same time it is also, like all arts, emotional and intuitive.

quote:

---

While I guess there is a market for that style of writing, I fear you may find it not as big as the market for simply good stories.

---

Why are the two mutually excuslive?

a "good story" is a totally subjective matter of opinion. And a story may have a more old fashioned, chronicle or history type style or whatever, but still be narrative, exciting, and gripping.

When I critique someone's first 13, I'm not really looking for a response. Often I don't even return to the page. (If I'm reading a whole story, then I'll have a dialog).

quote:

---

Here's an example. That short story is one of my favorites and it breaks all the "rules". However the author knew enough about the rules to know how to break them.

---

halogen, terrific find, but I'm a bit confused. Which rules are being broken here? The act that there is no dialogue attribution? Beyond that, I'm not sure what others are being broken.

quote:

---

halogen, terrific find, but I'm a bit confused. Which rules are being broken here? The act that there is no dialogue attribution? Beyond that, I'm not sure what others are being broken.

---

Well... this list is entirely subjective but here's some guidelines/rules that I think it breaks.

No character descriptions We don't know who is talking to who. We don't know what they look like, how old they are, what species they are.

No dialog attribution No "he said, it said, she said"

100% dialog Not only does this short story start out with dialog, it middles and ends with dialog. Nothing else. Just two people talking.

No idea of time/place There is nothing to describe where these beings are, there is nothing to suggest how long they've been there. We don't even know if they are in the same room / galaxy.

All of these things would probably be considered problems in a standard short story but here it is all done intentional. Without character descriptions the reader must invent them. With no dialog attribution we must give them voices. Without any setting of time place we are free to imagine them discussing in a spaceship, over telephone or even by carrier pigeon.

Again, all subjective

[This message has been edited by halogen (edited April 21, 2008).]