What I don't understand is the need to argue with the rules.

I was reading this blog post about showing vs. telling...
http://blog.nathanbransford.com/2009/09/showing-vs-telling.html
...and I couldn't help but notice that people took the time to disagree with the post in the comments section.

I've seen far less so in my short time here, and the discussion has been respectful and civilised. But I have noticed similar sentiments expressed.

So here's the question. Why argue? For those of you who think the rules are extraneous, do you think they're hurting learning writers?

The reason I see that writing discussions become contentious is because the terms and concepts and applications under discussion have widely varying meanings and significances to each participant.

Take the "Show Don't Tell" Law. What does it really mean? I've encountered a dozen or so different meanings and applications.

Tell as direct address to readers, what I know as narration mode. Show then as indirect address?

Tell as imperative address.

Tell as a narrator's viewpoint.

Tell as explanation, summarization, or exposition as well as in the other fiction-writing modes. Even dialogue (conversation) as tell.

Tell as authorial intrusion.

Tell as relating knowledge that a viewpoint character can't logically know.

Tell as an abrupt change in tone or psychic access.

Tell as an unexplainable change in other narrative or character points of view.

quote:

---

The show don't tell maxim isn't all that ancient and certainly no more of an absolute law than anything else about story

---

Does its age make it less absolute? Literary expectations change. I enjoy Fahrenheit 451 or 1984 or War and Peace as much as the next person, but the styles are antiquated and at times jarring.

Sometimes they change their minds in the course of arguing. Sometimes they don't.

Some people also just like the internet form/style of arguing because it's less confrontational than in-person discussions (though I don't agree, I think some take this as license to behave in ways they wouldn't in public. I find that abhorrent. I strive to never say something online, in print, email, what have you, that I wouldn't say out loud.)

Some people like to demonstrate how smart they are by arguing their point of view.

Some people just have a compelling need to feel that they are right, that their POV is the one correct truth and that other people are just misinformed or confused or disobedient.

edit: tongue in cheek

quote:

---

I enjoy Fahrenheit 451 or 1984 or War and Peace as much as the next person, but the styles are antiquated and at times jarring.

---

I believe this is where the problem arises. Where you find this style "antiquated and at times jarring", I may not. Does either opinion make the other wrong? I would say, "No."
I continue to read things printed today, that borrow heavily from different periods in literature, and enjoy them thoroughly. I also read things that seem to break the most basic rules of writing (punctuation and capitalization), and enjoy them as well. The "rules" are guides.

I read this recently and can't find the exact quote, but I'll paraphrase: "If Picasso had started out with Cubism, nobody would have taken him seriously." - think it was from The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, by Michael Chabon (but not sure).

Simple answer, you aren't big famous writer. Generally when someone argues with a critique, they just don't want to hear what the critiquer is trying to say. If only one person says it, you could probably ignore them. When the whole treehouse complains, you got more than a bending the rule problem.

One is, I don't like inaccuracy. A rule, generally speaking, is something that either must be followed or that breaking it carries negative consquences. Therefore, for me, the way in which people frequently speak of "rules" of writing is simply innacurate. Those rules can most certainly be broken, and whether or not there will be negative consquences for such is extremely arguable and depends a lot on a writers goals.

Theres often a lot of declaritive, absolute statements made about these things, which is another pet peeve of mine. Basically everything that we discuss here is from 90-100% subjective and based on opinion or taste. Now I know many people feel that when someone says something you should just "assume" they are stating it as an opinion, but if the langauge used is declaritive and definitive and is not qualified, they are saying it as fact unless they state otherwise. I personally feel if your stating your opinion and don't want that misunderstood, you should make it explicitly clear.

Now to go into some reasons others have brought up that apply to me...

quote:

---

For many people, the way they learn best is by challenging what they hear/read/see. They test it, they explain it away, they disagree, and in the process of describing why they are challenging something or why they hate it so much or what have you, they learn.

---

KayTi, I love you. This applies VERY strongly to me. When it comes to certain things...and writing is very much one of them...I am not given to simply agreeing with something someone states. Whether they be a fellow struggling writer, a successful one, an editor or whoever else just because some says "show is always better than tell" or whatever, doesn't mean I'm going to agree with it. And especially if it clashes with things I already know/feel/have experienced I'm going to argue it in exactly the manner you speak of. To determine its accuracy and/or relevence. Some times this leads me to accept something I initial disagree with. Some times it strengthens my original views. Often times it does allow me to see things in a different, often useful light.

Mindless acceptance of anything isn't really, to me, a particularly good idea for aspiring creative writers.

extrinsy, you make a great point about "show/tell" and the fact that often, people...even people who are very adamant about the superiority of either one to the other, have totally different definitions of them. This, to me, is a clear indication that it isn't a "rule" simply a shorthand for certain stylistic approaches. The same, I find, is true of many other "rules."

quote:

---

My opinion: it's better to start with the basic rules, find your style within them, then experiment after generally accepted 'good writing' is second nature.

---

What if your basic style is in direct oposition to one or more of them? And I'm really not so sure theres any such thing as "generally accepted good writing" at the end of the day. The "rules" as near as I can tell are actually at most tools. They should be learned, but there really isn't any "starting with them" as in the end they are essentially tools, or stylistic choices. They should be learned and spoken of, but they should be applied specifically and in context and with the understanding that as extrinsy says they are principles, potentials, tools, in no way are they laws.

quote:

---

One problem with arguing with the rules is you'll get someone that says big famous writer gets away with it, why can't I?Simple answer, you aren't big famous writer.

---

I'd say they answer is, you CAN get away with it. Cause people who are published but are in no way big famous writers do it constantly. A huge portion of the stuff I see published...in pro markets, semi pro and token, written by people who are by no means OSC's or Ray Bradbury's or even on the level of someone like our own Aliette regularly flies in the face of one or more of the so called "rules."

I kind of think of the rules of writing as a protocols to write a novel. They are well established and have proven to work for many other writers. But this doesn't mean you should strictly adhere to the protocol.

In my experience as a biochemist, many times perfectly following a well established protocol leads to failure especially when you are using it to do something that has never been done before. But this doesn't mean that you discard the protocol. You just need tweek it.

This is when it is useful to discuss the protocol with other lab rats who have used it before to understand the theory behind it and what can be changed.

To me, arguing against the "rules" is trying to disprove them. That is like completely dicarding the protocol because it didn't work for you the first time. I don't think this is very productive. The protocol is most likely your best chance for the experiment to work.

But discussing the "rules" of writing with other writers is very helpful. It helps you understand why it is a rule, and only then will you know how to tweek them to make your story work.

As far as the specific rule "show not tell," the discussion that KDW has pointed us to in FAQs and Links to Discussions was very enlightening IMO. If you haven't read it yet you should.

I suppose my rule-respect comes from my day job, which is an artistic one.

Plain and simple, art classes help. The study of composition and negative space and opposing curves and conflict and tension as it applies to paintings (and film) are necessary to my job.

If I were to go into a meeting when my work is critiqued, and say that I feel that compositional rules are guidelines, I could lose my job.

That may not mean that the compositional rules are absolute like 1+1=2 (which itself has some who argue against it ), but they are certainly generally accepted.

My point is that these literary rules, too, are generally accepted. I have yet to find a writing book that says "tell, don't show!" or "use -ly adverbs liberally." Agent websites rarely say "this agent prefers tales told entirely in the passive voice."

It isn't that the rules are absolute, I don't think, but nor are they negligible. They are fluid. They all apply, sometimes they can be violated to an intended effect. That doesn't mean the effect is interesting reading, but they can be violated by the skilled writer.

The real key lies in the story itself. The presentation can enhance it or detract from it. The "rules" are mostly concerned with the presentation (the ones I'm familiar with, anyway). A successful writer whose writing isn't always the most efficient or stylish is still probably an excellent storyteller, and with an excellent story there is a lot of latitude available for its presentation.

I don't see a lot of merit in arguing about the so-called rules, because the subject is ultimately subjective. If you can find a way to connect with a reading audience outside of the familiar prose fiction styles out there today, that's great.