Writing by the rules? ...Nah!
I could, with much more time and effort on my part, and that of my editors, be a technically perfect writer. With enough time and editing, anyone could, really. I could comb my manuscript for every rule of writing in The Chicago Manual of Style, or The Oxford Style Manual. I could give up all of my Canadian colloquialisms and spellings. I could narrate every story without contractions and slang. I could have every character speak without accent or inflection. I could study the common tropes and the pet peeves of readers, and break my neck ensuring I've avoided every one. I could refrain from dramatic pauses, repetitive character phrases and behaviours, and redundancies of description. 
I could do all of these things at once, thereby avoiding negative reviews of my work based on the technical details of my writing.
But...have you ever read a technically perfect novel? Without being forced to do it as some sort of assignment, that is.
Flawless grammatical writing, in my opinion, ruins a book. It crushes the breath, the colour, the personality out of the characters and the storyline. It makes the narrator sound like an automaton. It renders all characters as uptight paper dolls with sticks up their backsides. It turns a story I'd enjoy reading into a test of endurance. So, to the dismay of critics everywhere, I will continue to write my books as less than technically perfect. You'll still find Canadian spellings and grammar, fifty-cent words, age-old idioms and cliches, contractions, colloquialisms, slangs, tired tropes, and dramatic pauses in my stories. I will keep using the Oxford comma at will, when I feel it fits.
You see, the editor isn't always the last line of defense. They tell the author the rules and point out where they've broken them. Some companies, however, give their authors final say on what changes are made.
Honestly, I tend to listen to my editors most of the time because, as I've said many times, I'm far from perfect. I didn't write this post because someone picked on my editing, though. I wrote it because I've seen a lot of author-bashing reviews on books I've read, based on minor technical details. These reviews are, for the most part, petty and bitter jabs at the author, and many of them totally miss the mark.
See, when someone posts a negative review about editing, it's not the author they're bashing, but the editor. The saddest part of that is many of these reviews are full of technical errors, which speaks to me. It says that these people are either trolling, or they have deluded themselves into believing they're some sort of editing savant. My work is always edited by a professional editor. However, I will continue to take artistic license and break rules to satisfy my inner artist. I write to entertain, for the readers, but I also write for me. I write because I can't not write.
I know this means I'll remain a target for critics and trolls. Maybe I'll never be famous, or rich, but that's not why I write. Anyone who isn't writing for the love of it is either hopelessly optimistic or gloriously delusional. So, I will continue to putter along and write the stories I'd want to read, and hope that a few precious readers will enjoy them too.
That said, I'm off to write. Good reading, everyone!
I could do all of these things at once, thereby avoiding negative reviews of my work based on the technical details of my writing.
But...have you ever read a technically perfect novel? Without being forced to do it as some sort of assignment, that is.
Flawless grammatical writing, in my opinion, ruins a book. It crushes the breath, the colour, the personality out of the characters and the storyline. It makes the narrator sound like an automaton. It renders all characters as uptight paper dolls with sticks up their backsides. It turns a story I'd enjoy reading into a test of endurance. So, to the dismay of critics everywhere, I will continue to write my books as less than technically perfect. You'll still find Canadian spellings and grammar, fifty-cent words, age-old idioms and cliches, contractions, colloquialisms, slangs, tired tropes, and dramatic pauses in my stories. I will keep using the Oxford comma at will, when I feel it fits.
You see, the editor isn't always the last line of defense. They tell the author the rules and point out where they've broken them. Some companies, however, give their authors final say on what changes are made.
Honestly, I tend to listen to my editors most of the time because, as I've said many times, I'm far from perfect. I didn't write this post because someone picked on my editing, though. I wrote it because I've seen a lot of author-bashing reviews on books I've read, based on minor technical details. These reviews are, for the most part, petty and bitter jabs at the author, and many of them totally miss the mark.
See, when someone posts a negative review about editing, it's not the author they're bashing, but the editor. The saddest part of that is many of these reviews are full of technical errors, which speaks to me. It says that these people are either trolling, or they have deluded themselves into believing they're some sort of editing savant. My work is always edited by a professional editor. However, I will continue to take artistic license and break rules to satisfy my inner artist. I write to entertain, for the readers, but I also write for me. I write because I can't not write.I know this means I'll remain a target for critics and trolls. Maybe I'll never be famous, or rich, but that's not why I write. Anyone who isn't writing for the love of it is either hopelessly optimistic or gloriously delusional. So, I will continue to putter along and write the stories I'd want to read, and hope that a few precious readers will enjoy them too.
That said, I'm off to write. Good reading, everyone!
No comments have been added yet.
