I've been thinking about this.

I'm currently about half-way through [u]The Name of the Wind[/u] by Patrick Rothfuss. For the most part, I'm enjoying it--a lot.

But if you just go by the "rules":

This is a debut novel, at almost 700 pages.

Most of it is told in first person past tense, as the memories of the POV character. We already know he survives and that he's famous enough for a chronicler to come looking for him to get the real story from him.

From the subtitle of the book (Chronicles of the Kingkiller, Day 1) and by about page 50, when he tells the Chronicler that it will take three days to tell his story, we also know that even after 700 pages, we're not going to know how it ends. We're going to have to wait for two more books for that.

And despite all of that, this novel was published, and got reviews we would all figuratively kill for. For the most part, it's really good.

So, my lesson is, write what's in you to write, as well as you can and forget about what they say they want. Because, if it's good enough, they (the agents and publishers) will throw the rule book out.

I'm not saying ignore the rules. There's no doubt conforming to the rules will make it easier--as long as it doesn't compromise the story. But I wouldn't obsess about it, either.

He also says that you shouldn't throw out the rule book entirely, but to look at the rules as tools and not something that is unflexible. They can be bent to an extent and still work. I follow the rules the best I can when I write. That and everything I've gleaned from my fellow Hatrackers. It's improved my writing so much that it's unreal. But my stories are still just that... mine. Why? Because I use my own distinct way of telling my stories. I use my own voice and refuse to try and copy anyone else's. I've developed my own style. Will it appeal to everyone? Heck no! And I don't expect it to. It's the best I can do, and if some people don't like it, there will be enough other people who will. Same thing with editors and agents. You just have to keep punching away until you hit pay dirt.

I agree with what's been said above. Know the "rules", then break one -- or better, several.

I think that no matter how good one gets, crits are always valuable. People will inevitably find new ways to misunderstand what seems obvious to us, and, as writers, we're human and will always make mistakes -- that critters can help us spot. I think Hatrack crits are great for identifying errors and unintentional rule-breaking; for the finer polishing of a story, it seems to me necessary to find readers (some might be Hatrackers with whom we have developed a rapport) who understand us, who won't obsess over rules we've clearly decided to bend, who will see and critique the bigger picture.

This is the ONLY RULE YOU NEED TO FOLLOW:

Get the book into Oprah's hands.

That's it. That's all you have to do.

Writing is the only art form I pursue (notwithstanding my feeble guitar playing, which never leaves the confines of my spare-bedroom "studio"). However, my wife is a dancer and choreographer and our circle of friends includes a high percentage of dancers, musicians and visual artists. Most of them small, indie and with part-time jobs to keep themselves clothed and fed. My perception is that none of these artists invest as much time focusing on rules/workshop/critiques as writers do. Certainly a choreographer may hire a dramaturge to look over their shoulder and offer advice. And musicians occasionally will have a songwriting group to get some feedback.

But in general, these artists work within themselves, striving to give birth to the creative force inside them that needs to get out. And then they’ll work their asses off to promote it and get people to see it and appreciate it.

But unless they are specifically working on a commissioned piece, once they’ve satisfied themselves the art matches their vision and they’ve done everything they can to promote it, they don't seem to give a crap what other people think.

Maybe my perception is skewed because I’m not a member of these artist groups. But I just can’t imagine a group of visual artists discussing a set of rules ("I’d stay away from the colour blue – it’s so cliché... no gallery will be interested in a blue painting...")

quote:

---

Do writers focus more on the "mechanics" and less on the "art" than other artists?

---

How can you expect to be a good prize fighter without putting in hard hours on the bag, at the track, in the ring?

A gymnast doesn't get medals because he or she can do a good somersault--they have to learn the rest of the skillset too.

Would you send our Armed Forces off to war with a full pack, Ar15 and ammo, but with no training of how to use the equipment, clean the equipment, what to do when the equipment breaks down, or the physical stamina to accomplish a five mile march?

Tired of Metaphors?

What I see is the common problem with society today: Everybody whining about how hard it is, how unfair it is, when the rewarded are the ones who just do the work. And if they got rewarded without the work (which is the common complaint about Paolini and Meyer) the waiting ranks would tear them down for it. Stop whining. Do the work. Get published. Or don't. That is all. /Rant

Word.

Nowhere do I mean to suggest that anyone not follow the rules. In every other endeavor of my life I have always found that it is necessary to understand the rules. Not just what they are, but why they are.

Then, sometimes, in selected instances, you can bend or even break the rules. But only once you fully understand them.

What I am saying is that it's possible to get so wrapped up in the rules that it hamstrings your ability to tell the story.

If you're worrying about what sells, you're wasting your time. What sells today likely won't be what sells two years from now. Even if it is, I can only tell the stories that are in my mind and heart. I can't warp them into something else. They won't work for me that way. That's how I got to chapter five of Book Three and then could barely squeeze out a paragraph a day. I was trying to push that story into something it didn't want to be. (At least, that's part of the conclusion I've come to. That story will have an entirely different outline before I start it again.)

quote:

---

Nowhere do I mean to suggest that anyone not follow the rules

---

I was wondering what would happen if no one followed the rules.

What would happen if you picked up a crayon in your fist and scrawled a heart-breakingly gorgeous, moving, inspirational story without regards to word usage or passive voice or adverbs or whether it’s first-person-future-tense using too many “-ing” words... sometimes referred to as a “low skill / high sensitivity” approach to art. How many great stories don’t see the light of day because the potential author is inhibited by the fact they don’t know what a dangling participle is.

I’ve seen efforts offered for critique that had an original voice and some spark that seemed to set it apart, but may not have been written with best prose. Once it’s corrected according to what is deemed proper, it often loses some of the author’s originality. Maybe the objective definition of proper doesn't fit for that author for that story.

I support striving to improve your writing skills. I do it myself. Just don’t let it get in the way of a good story. Of course, I make the assumption that developing mechanical skills kills creativity, which isn’t necessarily true. Developing skills might help you express yourself better.

quote:

---

Maybe I’m just projecting, but I think my writing would improve if I said to hell with the rules and just CREATED. Right? Wrong? F*** it, just create something beautiful.

---

That's what first drafts are for.

There are no rules to first drafts except: get the story out.

During the second (and all subsequent) draft(s) cleaning up the prose, making sure each sentence (word) serves a purpose, strengthening verbs, filling plot holes are what they are for.

You don't want to eliminate every adverb and adjective, just the ones that weaken the verbs, over-paint the picture or waste words which could be used to advance the story (plot, character, milieu, foreshadowing, plot devices or motivation--this last not to the point of miring the pace). You don't want to strangle your voice, but make it clear.

I think all art forms have their set of rules -- graphics and photography have rules of composition, for example. The thing to remember, as many of us know, is that they aren't really rules. They're simply a set of concepts that help artists to talk about what in their experience tends to work, and what doesn't, in order to learn from each other and master their craft. So when the Dadaists and Surrealists rebelled against the classical forms of painting that had gone before, they retained compositional rules based on triangles and golden sections, because they knew that pictures so composed tend to have more power.

(In the same way, I bet that rock singers who specialize in a raucous voice that's supposed to be the result of too much drinking and smoking actually, most of the time and in private, work to preserve that voice using old fashioned techniques like drinking water ... alongside the whisky)

quote:

---

He also says that you shouldn't throw out the rule book entirely, but to look at the rules as tools and not something that is unflexible. They can be bent to an extent and still work. I follow the rules the best I can when I write. That and everything I've gleaned from my fellow Hatrackers. It's improved my writing so much that it's unreal. But my stories are still just that... mine. Why? Because I use my own distinct way of telling my stories. I use my own voice and refuse to try and copy anyone else's. I've developed my own style. Will it appeal to everyone? Heck no! And I don't expect it to. It's the best I can do, and if some people don't like it, there will be enough other people who will. Same thing with editors and agents. You just have to keep punching away until you hit pay dirt.

---

This is very true, as is the inverse that not everyone...and that includes editors...has the same taste. Theres no set of "rules" (not talking about the basic rules of the language) you can follow thats going to make you appeal to all editors or readers. I think the recently posted Clarksworld interview definitely showed that they all have their different likes, dislikes and areas of emphasis (positive and negative.)

quote:

---

Let me ask you, Meredith...are you talking about the basic rules of the language, as in spelling, grammar, punctuation, syntax etc etc, or are you talking about the "rules" of writing and getting published that we here different versions of, such as you have to have a sympathetic protaganist, there must be conflict or tension from the very begining, you can't be to verbose or descriptive, omniscient POV is bad etc etc, or are you talking about both?

The past several posts seem to be talking about actual language rules, which do for the most part need to be followed, but those other "rules" are something a little different.

---

I am definitely talking about the latter--POV, etc.

The former are, by and large, meant to help us make what we write understandable to our readers. You can't get anywhere without that.

In my opinion, those things, the POV stuff and tension and all that, are not rules at all. I'm not sure you'd even call them guidlines. They are, as near as I can tell, little more than opinions and tastes. And perhaps trends. At certain times and in certain places those things come into or fall out of fashion. Although even then there is always plenty of stuff not following those trends. One of my favorite, currently published author's work ignores a great many of them. His stuff tends to lack sympathetic protaganists, is very very heavy on descreption with a strong focus on setting, rarely begins with conflict etc etc.

Also, I do think that we (writers) tend to worry more over that sort of stuff than other artists, but not necessarily without reason. In that trying to break out as a writer is a bit different than many other art forms, and in some ways perhaps more difficult. Especially if compared to music. My dad is a muscian and while he's never been professional or made any huge amount of money, he's frequently been able to put a band together and go play out some for actual pay.
For us on the other hand, just to get paid for a single story can be a long journey. It took me nearly a year to make a single story sale (and I haven't had another since, so far.) We send stories to single, specific markets to be rejected or bought at the decision of usually only one or two people, whereas music and some other forms are more audience centered.

And I do think this forum in particular has and fosters a strong tendency to obsess a bit to much about these things. There seems to be an overall feel or idea here that theres a list of certain things (such as having immediate tension or conflict within the first few lines of a story, having deep character immersion) that you MUST do to get published, and likewise certain other things you MUST NOT do in order to get published (such as being highly verbose or descreptive or using omniscient POV etc.) There seems to be a lack of realization that all editors are individuals, they don't all look for exactly the same things, and that trends are just trends.

I do some times write with a strong concious effort to play into these trends, but there are other things I write...stories I wish to tell...that I'm going to write how they want to be. And I do believe that there is an audience for most forms of stories.

quote:

---

Although, I will ignore a few. I do use sentence fragments, particularly in dialogue or internal monologue, for example. To my ear, people just do talk that way.

---

I agree wholeheartedly with this also. People do use fragments frequently in both speech and thought.