Get a Free Ebook

Five Inspirational Truths for Authors

Try our Video Classes

Downloadable in-depth learning, with pdf slides

Find out more about My Book Therapy

We want to help you up your writing game. If you are stuck, or just want a boost, please check us out!

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Rethinking Writing Rules - Pt. 1



By Mike Duran



I'm a legalist by nature, so it's no surprise I got bogged down by writing rules. I'm not talking about the Strunk and White type of rules, the standard principles of grammar and composition. There's "other" rules for contemporary novel writing, formulas for publication which some hold to be just as binding as rules of spelling and punctuation.

Some of those rules are:

  • Show Don't Tell -- Use action and dialog rather than exposition

  • POV -- Maintain a consistent, realistic narrative point-of-view; don't "head hop" from one person to the next in the same scene

  • Avoid Passives -- Keep tenses active; "Shirley broke the window," not "The window was broken by Shirley"

  • Limit Dialogue Attribution Tags -- Avoid too many he said / she said's, and their variants: "he snorted," "she chirped," "they gurgled," etc.


Of course, there's many other rules and shifting stands (see, for instance, the recent discussion about the use of italics at super-agent Chip MacGregor's blog), but those are some of the biggies.

Being that I'm fairly new to this gig, I've learned a lot of things on the fly. For instance, once I wrote a 6K word story in Present Tense. Present tense sounds something like this:

Shirley sees a rock, bends down and picks it up. It is sharp and cold to the touch, but it'll do. She aims for the window and hurls the stone, then tears off as the glass shatters and Mrs. Mulligan emerges spouting expletives.


As you can see, present tense puts things in the here and now, rather than there and then.

Anyway, I wrote that story, was fairly pleased with my accomplishment, and submitted it to my critique group. But their response shocked me. Most publishers don't like present tense, they said. In fact, one critter stated they personally so abhorred present tense that they COULD NOT critique my piece. Huh?

My puzzlement stemmed, in part, from the fact I'd just finished reading a short story from a popular author, written in present tense. Go figger. That was my first encounter with the weird world of writing rules.

When asked what "pet peeves" she had about the industry, one CBA romance writer said this:

With so many writing rules that new authors have to follow, it’s hard for me to read writers who don’t follow the rules. I can’t hardly read one writer who was one of my favorites for years because that person tells instead of shows, head hops, and has lots of author intrusion. I never noticed those things before I became a writer, but now they jump out at me and can ruin the story.


(I'm guessing this author would loathe Cormac MacCarthy's, The Road, with its minimalist style, multitudinous fragmentary sentences, absence of quotation marks and apostrophes, and obvious disregard for many, many "writing rules." And oh, by the way, a book that won the Pulitzer Prize.)

Most intriguing about all this, and rather tertiary to the above author's comments, is the notion that new writers must follow a set of rules. However, the rules in question were not necessarily standards of grammar and composition, but adherence to certain commercial, conventional axioms -- formulas, if you will -- for publication. (Heck, for the longest time I thought Brown and King was a book in the Bible, and questioning them was blasphemy.)

So while I worked hard at following the rules, eventually I began to see a disparity between some of what I was learning and what was actually being published. This was extremely confusing. The biggest hit came when I read a very influential Christian writer... only to discover he "head-hopped' like crazy. The guy had sold a million books, but he couldn't manage POV!

Hmm. Maybe the problem was what I was learning, not what was being published.

After a season of legalism, Stephen Koch's book, The Modern Library Writer's Workshop, was revelatory. In it, he writes this about POV:

Many teachers of writing will tell you that the way to unify your story and integrate it with its characters is through something called the narrative "point of view." There are even certain purists who will insist that an "integrated point of view" is the only way a narrative can achieve unity. . .

. . .The academic emphasis on "point of view" in fiction is precisely that -- academic. The notion that "the most important thing in fiction is point of view" is a beguiling but vacuous theory that bears only a marginal relation to real practice. And it causes vast amounts of misunderstanding.

. . .Of course, a consistent point of view can indeed be a guide to unity, and of course, you will want your prose to have a coherent texture. But it is a mistake to assume that point of view itself necessarily endows any story with either unity or coherence. Too often, this rather fussy doctrine pointlessly constricts writers' options and narrows their range.

(pp. 88-90)


After my early "indoctrination," it was refreshing to hear the POV rules called, "...a beguiling but vacuous theory... [a] rather fussy doctrine [that] pointlessly constricts writers' options and narrows their range."

I've since began to wonder if, at least in Christian circles, a type of authorial inbreeding is taking place. We attend the same writers’ conferences, read the same books, visit the same blogs. Aren't we in danger of living in an echo chamber, devising a "canon" of our own making?

When one lives under the notion that success -- i.e., publication, i.e., the "Holy Grail" of aspiring authors -- means adherence to a certain set of "rules," legalism is inevitable.

Continued...

19 comments:

  1. I wrote a memoir in present tense at the urging of my editor. It turned out better than had I used the reflective, past tense voice. I love the immediacy of present tense, but have seldom used it.

    And The Road is a beautiful piece of writing. Maybe it's about learning your voice, then sticking to it. And maybe it's about freedom, too.

    Mary DeMuth
    www.marydemuth.com
    www.wannabepublished.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Well said," she gurgled.

    You're a kindred, Duran. And you always find the best photos to accompany your posts. 50 points for the rifle-toting nuns. They make me happy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I sometimes wonder if part of the reason that some authors are so set on certain rules is because they "broke the rules" in their first few attempts and were rejected by publishers. Rather than blaming this on a boring story or a story that is too much like everything else out there, they blame it on not following the rules. In future attempts they write better and also follow the rules, so they assume that it was the rules that got them the first time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have my own theories about all these rules but I'll keep them to myself. You're a brave, brave man! Needless to say, this article is wonderful. I can't wait to read more.
    Jess

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for the comments! Mary, I do think the issue is "freedom." Of course, real freedom has parameters. Nevertheless, I'm wondering if the "writing rules" aren't a bit of a tightrope between formula and freedom, law and grace. My point in this post is to suggest that we may be raising a generation of Christian writers more focused on form / formula, than freedom / grace.

    Timothy, in a way, implementing rules is easier for a new author than scheming a good story (which is a much more complex affair). It's like those dumb ads that promise the "hidden keys / principles" to health / wealth / happiness. You know, "Do these 7 things and get rich, tighten your buns and achieve nirvana." However, finding the right story for you and executing it -- just like firm abs, financial prosperity, and inner peace -- is different for everyone.

    And Jeanne, I scoured the internet for a picture of nuns in Panzer tanks, but had to settle for the rifles. God bless you guys!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for talking about breaking the rules within Christian fiction. I feel a wave of relief.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As something of an "academic," in my book it's the knowledgeable breaking of rules that can really make a book interesting.

    For instance, the late fantasy author Robert Jordan wrote bloated epics, but I found myself really enjoying them and particularly loving the character interactions. It was only after I started picking it apart that I realized the joy of his writings came largely from the ability to recognize narrative consistency but also head-hop. (i.e. one conversation may be shown from two very opposite perspectives, but the reader gets to spend enough time in one "head" to feel comfortable there.)

    Heck, even the dowdy Oxford don Tolkien switches perspectives: there is a moment late in The Two Towers where it becomes very apparent that Sam is telling the story, rather than Frodo. (Seriously, if you're an LotR fan, try looking for it sometime--you'll be surprised!)

    And then, of course, we all praise authors such as McCarthy who can break far more rules while telling a meaningful story.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm with you all the way, Mike. Not only because I long for freedome for myself, but also because there are so many novels I love that are full of rule-breaking.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Amen, Mike. I've been spewing these opinions for a long time because of the very reasons you gave--freedom of style, format, text, POVs. You name it. Aren't novels supposed to be "creative" writing?

    I am so sick of hearing "show, don't tell", I'd like to "show" my hatred of the instruction to someone . . . anyone? :)

    However, this concept had to originate with someone(s) in the industry at a professional level, and then most fell into lockstep with it all, including agents.

    I have two words for these instructions when used and applied exclusively: Boring, Formulaic.

    (Sorry, hit a nerve, obviously.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Another outstanding post, Mike. And although I agree with a lot of what everyone is saying here, I do have a bit of a different take...

    I dislike rules, big time. But in the same way that I dislike my lawnmower.

    I think rules are helpful as a diagnostic tool and really not much else. I know all the rules. I understand why they exist and all that. I get it. So for me, rules aren't the problem...it's how we use them.

    When I find a passage of writing (usually mine!) that I know intuitively needs help, I think it's useful to disengage emotionally and go to the tool box (rule box?) to see if I can figure out what the problem is. Usually, my bad writing can be helped along by one of these Writing Commandments. (Sometimes I need to just start over...)

    And this is probably how all these tools become rules in the first place...'shorthand diagnosis' from writing books/editors/agents at conferences that writers ran off and canonized them?

    So if I'm thinking show-don't-tell when I should be writing, I write poorly. But if I write poorly all by myself, then it might be helpful to see if I was lazily telling where I should have been showing.

    Or maybe writing rules are like stereotypes...there's obviously something to them, but we shouldn't give them any more power than they deserve?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have to humbly grovel and say, I have come to terms with present tense. I've seen it a lot lately and while at first it jars me slightly, if the story is good, I forget all about it. :o)

    Rules, my dear friend, I've learned are there to be bent into musical staffs, creating a song of prose. Whatever it takes to make it sing ...

    Sister Ane holsters her ruler.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There are rules? Man, and I'm an English major too...

    Just kidding. Great article, as usual. It all depends on what kind of writer you are. If someone tells a guitarist that because he can't read music he should hang up his art, even if he plays like Bono, it's ridiculous. But there aren't that many musicians who are that good. Everyone else needs to play by the sheet music.

    I think I use that example far too often, but it fits. Don't break the rules just to break them. It will show. A good editor or critique partner can help guide a good story when a broken rule becomes a problem.

    But don't try to impose rules on your critique partner if he or she has broken them well.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey, terrific comments folks! CR, I think you're right that "the knowledgeable breaking of rules" can make a book interesting. I don't for a minute think that Cormac McCarthy doesn't understand punctuation, which makes his misuse of it all the more fascinating. Perhaps it is in proving we can adhere to the rules that we earn the freedom to break them.

    Nicole, I'm not raging against the rules here, as much as I'm suggesting their potential overemphasis (or at least, the need for a complimentary track on stylistic freedom). "Show don't Tell" is a reasonable rule, if not an absolute necessity. Without it, a story becomes a documentary. The "spirit" of that rule is "too much exposition kills a tale." Understanding that makes the "letter of the law" more tolerable. "Creative writing" should not be a license for abstraction, but even then, abstracts must be framed.

    Mike, great take on the rules as "diagnostic tools." There may be several reasons my grass is looking ratty in the front yard, but you're right: running the lawnmower over it usually helps. And Sister Ane, for your penance I think you should switch from a rifle to a paintball gun... at least something less injurious. Grace to you all!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I adore present tense.

    And thank you for sharing your wisdom. I think back to my first book, which so many said would never sell, precisely because it did not follow the 'romance rules' of the time. The editor said that was why she bought it. I wrote it on my own, without knowing any other writers. I wonder can I be so free today.

    The problem with learning the rules is that they get in your head, loom over, and start to critique you as you go. Golly-- they look just like those nuns.

    In gratitude,
    CurtissAnn

    ReplyDelete
  15. I love the way you express yourself, Mike. Give me multisyllabic sarcasm any day.

    I remember the smacking you took over the adverbs. (We all needed that little lecture. Thanks for being the scapegoat.) Adverbs are, as a rule, flabby writing. But until someone points it out, I think I'm a brilliant writer as I pen page after page of Tom Swifties.

    I think the critiquers job is to point out the things they see that ruin a potentially good read.

    Ane and I don't have the same taste. Doesn't mean she's wronger or righter necessarily. You loved the passage you quoted. I laughed out loud at the vocabulary lesson within. Hey, buddy, just say it don't spray it. Know what I mean?

    ReplyDelete
  16. There's an old saying about knowing what the rules are so that you can break them. Someone who does it well can get away with it... the ones who don't, suck. I like your thoughts on the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Funny you should mention Cormac MacCarthy's, The Road. I was talking to someone not too long ago about this "award winning book." I proposed the question, "If an unknown author had written this book, would it have a) been published and b) won the Pulitzer Prize???" ... due to the exact points that you made...minimalist style, multitudinous fragmentary sentences, absence of quotation marks and apostrophes, and obvious disregard for many, many "writing rules.

    I guess we'll never know.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I can't prove this, but sometimes if an agent or editor reads a submission that's almost there, but doesn't quite grab him as far as story or execution, they might look for an easy way to explain the "no-thanks." Go through submission package and spot a place or two that head-hops, or shows-doesn't-tell, then cite that as reason. Agents & editors are only human, after all.

    And Tim will beat me up one side & down the other for quoting this, but I've been told point-blank there are different sets of rules for us who haven't sold yet in CBA, and those who have. I agree. Once you've cleared that particular hurdle, it seems from what's out there to be read that there is much more latitude.

    I'm working on making it to that day.

    ReplyDelete

Don't be shy. Share what's on your mind.