posted
I've read a lot about the rules of storytelling recently. Some of these rules have helped me to focus my mind and energy and improve my story while others seem too hard and fast to me. I've noticed that many of my favorite authors break these rules from time to time and get away with it. Can they get away with it because they're known and published or can breaking these rules sometimes be the best way to tell a story?
Example: Within the first few pages of your novel you are supposed to introduce the main character and the main conflict. Then you are supposed to work backwards to catch the read up on any background information they may need. I can see why this formula works, it get you off to an exciting start and sets up the ending. But I've seen my faorite authors break this rule, requiring us to sit through some lead in while they build up to the true conflict.
When is it ok to break the rules? When you're already published and have some freedom? Or can you break the rules because this time, with this story, it makes more sense?
posted
For the particular exception you mention, I suspect that it might be a combination of established writer (with a faithful readership) sloppiness (not being as careful to make the beginning follow the rules) and a realization that the rules for beginnings can be stretched or bent a little as long as everything else works for the reader.
Many times, the "Rules of Writing" are things newer writers must do in order to get past the "newness" barrier and to convince editors and readers that they really can write stuff worth reading.
Also, once you have followed the Rules, you should have a better understanding of how they work and why they are Rules, and you should be able to see how they can be successfully stretched or bent as the story requires.
Some Rules (such as "avoid flashbacks") are ignored by writers (such as Stephen King) because they can get away with ignoring them, not because they really do make the story better. (The more established a writer is, the greater the possibility that the writer will either get sloppy on his/her own or the writer's publisher will not bother investing the time and money in having an editor clean up the writer's work or urging the writer to do it because the writer may not want to do any more work on the story and writer's readers will pay to read it anyway. Then it all comes down to the writer's integrity.)
Concerning the "main character in the first few pages" rule, I'd say there is some latitude here. You might introduce "a main character" who is not the hero. Tom Clancy's first novel, The Hunt for Red October opens by introducing Marko Raimus, not Jack Ryan. Raimus is certainly one of the progtagonists and a central figure of the story, but Ryan is destined to be Clancy's ongoing "hero" and you don't meet him until many pages have gone by. It would have been very difficult to tell that story without introducing Raimus first.
I can also imagine times when you would want to introduce an antogonist as the first main character. If your story can't begin until a crime is committed, you might begin by showing the crime.
I believe the "main character in the first few pages" rule is especially hard on science fiction and fantasy writers. Our stories may be set in a complex milieu, and sometimes it's impossible to describe a certain character without first describing his/her surroundings. Right now I'm struggling with that myself.
posted
OSC has a saying, "You can break any rule of writing so long as you're willing to pay the price."
It would be nice if those who enumerate these rules would specify their prices, both how so and how much. Ah well....
With the introduce your protagonist rule, I assume the main issue is confusion. If you delay, the reader will not understand what form the story is taking. This can be counter-acted by being very clear about that. Maybe the issue is that the reader will feal disconnected without a clear emotional tie -- or torn between two ties later. Again, this can be treated, with sufficient skill.
Yes, more talented authors can ignore more rules because they have the skills to deal with it. Less talented writers can do it too, so long as they work hard at it and remember what they're doing.
posted
Practically speaking, I think Kathleen was very close to the mark.
Of course you can break the rules. But I bet all of those authors that you read, who are breaking all the rules, didn't do so on their first books.
So if you want to convince an editor or a publisher that you're up-to-snuff, I'd suggest following as many rules as possible until you have an established fanbase or a contract of somesort.
posted
Forgive my ignorance, but are these rules actually compiled somewhere or is this just a huge collection of unspoken do's and don't do's ?
Posts: 295 | Registered: May 2003
|
Some of these rules are written down in various places, but they're basically just the "norms" that people suggest you follow as a first-time novelist.
For instance, you have a better chance of publishing a first-time novel if:
a) it is 80-95k words, b) it is in an already established genre, c) it is not written in a really bizarre tense (i.e. second-person imperative),
etc. I'm sure there are a whole bunch more of the, but that's what comes to mind. I'm sure you can find them sprinkled throughout this scintillating web of world wideness.
posted
Generally, when an exception to a rule is acceptable, it is because the rule has been phrased imprecisely. For instance, you don't have to introduce the main character, but you should introduce a main character within the first few pages. And the reader should feel confident that this character is going to be important to the story as a whole. Don't betray that confidence, either. Don't reveal later that the introductory main character doesn't matter at all, or your reader will simply put the book down right there and tell everyone they meet what a crappy book it was.
The same is true for a central conflict exposed in the first few pages. It doesn't have to be the main conflict...and so on and so forth.
Kathleen has a point about established authors sometimes becoming a bit more sloppy. On the other hand, I often find that many writers write far better second, third, fourth, etc. books than first books. But usually after about fifteen or twenty books, there is a serious problem with quality control (the central problem is actually in the feedback loop, either in the reception or in the generation of feedback...).
But again, most rules about what not to do are limited in important ways. For instance, I wouldn't say "avoid flashbacks". I have flashbacks all the time, and I'm not talking about my writing. I think that most people have flashbacks, otherwise how would you be able remember things? I would say that unless the POV character is actually having a flashback at that point in the story, then a flashback is a POV violation, which it is.
You can catagorize errors by what aspect of the narrative they affect, and thus know the price for breaking the rules. POV exists to give the audience a place from which to recieve the story. First person artificial account creates the illusion that the story actually happened to someone (or at least that someone is saying it actually happened). You violate that POV, even a little, and the price is that the story doesn't fool anyone, the audience laughs and derides it as a fake. Third person limited omniscient is designed to create sympathy with a particular character in the story, by explaining the story from that character's POV. Each POV violation reduces the level of attachment the audience feels with that character, which reduces the personal investment of the audience in the story...but a single violation won't destroy the story.
Structure--or plot--gives the audience a reasonable certainty that the story will make sense, and that all the information revealed by the narrator is meaningful. If you have a lot of dead-end plot devices and throw-away characters, then the audience will realize that they have no reason to pay attention to any given scene or character...and they'll stop paying attention. If they really care about your story despite the lack of overall structure, then they might skip to the end and read the last page...maybe.
The narrative organization serves the purpose of giving the reader information in an orderly fashion. Most stories are chronological, but sometimes narrative uses a different logical organization. But if information is not presented in a logical order at all, then the reader will be confused.
If a book is too long, the audience won't buy it, if it is too short, they won't buy it either. Same for out of genre work and so forth.
I thought it had to be THE main character and THE main conflict. But I've seen a lot of books work when simply a main character or a main conflict is introduced.
Does anyone have any good references? I've apparently been reading the wrong things.