Ramblings On The Craft : The Rules Of Writing
DISCLAIMER : I consider myself to be a life-long writer but I am still an aspiring author. What’s the difference? Essentially, to me anyway, it means that while I have devoted a great deal of time to my words and my art, the amount of money I have made as a professional writer to date could maybe be used to purchase a nice steak dinner for two. So while I have a deep and devoted passion for writing, I do not claim in any way to be an expert or authority figure. What you will find in these essays represent my personal thoughts and feelings about various issues related to writing. I think that in any endeavor, it is essential to have the mindset that there is always something to learn, something you don’t know. As soon as you start to think that you are an authority on anything (besides how to eat a hot dog or perhaps, spelling your name) there might be a problem. With that in mind, I am fully cognizant and comfortable with the fact that on any and all of these issues, I could be completely wrong.
Put another way, I recognize and admit that I could be full of shit.
The rules of writing.
It’s a simple enough phrase, but one that is rife with issues and problems. As writers, it stands to reason that there should be clear cut delineations of what is and isn’t allowed. We should hold ourselves to consistent standards of conduct, and take care to see to it that our writing doesn’t stray too far from the borders that have been established by the literary masters who came before us.
The problem is that if you put a hundred writers down in the same room, chances are you will get close to a hundred different answers when asked to explain what the most important rules of writing are. It isn’t like it is for athletes, where the rules are clearly stated and enforced by game officials. It isn’t like lawyers who operate under a strict code of conduct or doctors who have strict parameters in which they are allowed to conduct themselves. The problem that you encounter when you go from writer to writer is ultimately that hardly anyone is operating out of the same playbook. Even the commonly held, established rules are often easily identified, but not easily explained. I think that in many cases, the rules we bandy about as writers have been a part of our collective awareness for so long that, often we don’t even really remember why we follow them. You are told simply, “you can’t do that”, but when you probe into that statement with simple inquiry, you often find nothing explanatory within the flat refusal of permission.
One unfortunate bi-product I have witnessed in the enforcement of our rules takes place during my comings and goings in social media, when I see less experienced writers getting the door slammed on them for the choices they make. I have seen writers who clearly fancy themselves as being “in the know”, going out of their way to shut down a writer for a perceived infraction, as if they are the arbiter of what should and should not be allowed. Sometimes I get the vibe that in the course of playing in the supposed “competition” with other writers, there are some that use the rules as a benchmark to show other people why they are inferior. It’s sad to witness and I am often tempted to come to the defense of some of these writers but that’s simply the nature of the Internet for you. To try and intervene is to stick your arm into a giant Venus Fly Trap. You fix nothing and there’s no escape once you get involved.
And to be clear, I don’t mean to imply the opposite, that there are no rules. There are plenty that I am perfectly fine with and think that we should just agree on following. Start a new paragraph when a new person is speaking, just to name an example. I think that few people would object to the need for respecting that. But even then, if I come across a writer who chose to broke that rule, I’m not going to appoint myself as some kind of literary crusader, and go after the writer for their egregious offense. I think that if you have a firm idea of where the path is, then you should feel free to stray from it every now and then. If someone has made the conscious decision to do something a certain way, I don’t think that it’s my place to wave the red flag in front of their face because at some point, someone decided that for some reason, you shouldn’t be allowed to do that.
This comes down to a core issue for me, namely, how we are using the so called “rules” as a way of evaluating each others writing. Through the technology of social media, I have had the privilege to meet a number of top flight writers. These are individuals who are exemplary and in every way, a credit to their craft. They are creative, respectful and encouraging, and I constantly find myself proud to call myself a friend and colleague of many of them. That said, there is another group of writers who fall outside the realm of this description, writers that have a harder time playing nice.
Namely, there are a lot of writers out there who are just spiteful cunts.
And that is no different than any other endeavor in life but this is how it relates to this topic. There are unfortunate instances where, as writers, we turn to each other for guidance and advice and often, the more petty writers out there, will simply use the rules as weight to give to their club that they are using to try and beat down writers that they see as less than themselves. I’ve seen it time and again, where one writer smacks down another for not keeping in line with the “rules” and I can’t help but think that deep down, all that person is trying to do is convince themselves of how awesome they are. I don’t think that we need to be unjustly complimentary when it comes to evaluating each others work, but I do believe that whatever our feedback, we should strive to be supportive of each other. If the rules are brought up in the evaluation of another person’s work, it should be done because your core intent is to be helpful, not because you want to use that rule to make the writer look silly or stupid. We do a good enough job tearing ourselves down from the inside, there’s no need to add external pressure to that.
For the purposes of discussion, here are a few common examples of what I’m talking about.
YOU CAN NEVER CHANGE POINT OF VIEW DURING A SCENE!!!!!!
There are a number of different points of view that your story may be written from. A few of the more popular ones are the first person, in which you spend the entire book completely inside the head of one character. You know all of their thoughts and emotions and see everything in the book, filtered through their perspective. The advantage of this is that, as the reader, you become intimately connected with one character. The challenge is in creating any kind of narrative scope on the story as the reader is only privy to information gained if the main character is present to see it. Third person limited is another popular choice in modern fiction, told from the perspective of an unseen narrator who offers the reader a more global perspective on the story. Think of the reader’s perspective as that of the viewer of a movie. You still get to see the internalizations of the characters, but with third person, there is more freedom and flexibility than there is in the first person. It is considered acceptable to see the internal thoughts of more than one character, but the rule of thumb is that if you are going to switch perspectives, you have to stop, and start a new scene from the new perspective.
To do otherwise is to put the story into third person omniscient. Basically what that means is that the narrator, at any given time, is privy to everything. The thoughts and feelings of every character and that information may be shared with you at any given time. It is a style of writing that was once more popular, but it has fallen out of general use. So why is this such a big deal? A significant part of the writing establishment has decided that it is too confusing for the reader if the narrator jumps around from character to character and that it’s too much to ask someone to keep up. They argue that the writing becomes too messy and muddled. So if you plan on changing from one person’s perspective to another, you’d better insert a section break, either start a new scene or a new chapter. If you don’t, you’re dead wrong.
Someone should tell Stephen King that he can’t write that way.
Look, here’s the thing. Yes, third person omniscient is less popular and has its own unique set of challenges. Personally, I’m not as much of a fan but I don’t inherently hate it. I certainly don’t think so much of my own tastes that I’m just going to tell someone that they aren’t allowed to do something. If you want to write your story in the third person omniscient, go for it. If it ends up not working out, well, that’s what editing is for. You only have to get it right once. So don’t let the others out there bully you into something that you want to try. If you are passionate about something, often that can be what it takes for your prose to be fresh enough to pull the reader through your less-than-common narrative format.
NEVER USE ADJECTIVES OR ADVERBS!!!!!!
Seriously, don’t do it. Never. never, ever, ever, never ever. It’s a classic sign of lazy writing and you should always show something to the reader instead of cheating, and telling.
Said the writer, warningly.
Look, I get it. I’m not a huge fan of the “ad” words and I think that there are plenty of instances where they are not used effectively. Sure, it’s generally better to give the character physical action that demonstrates what they are feeling, without having to actually say what they are feeling. But you know what? It also gets annoying when it seems like a character is constantly setting their jaw or grinding their teeth or letting out a frustrated sigh or smacking a fist into their open palm.
The thing is, really, that I think this is one of those things that writers get more upset about than readers. I would be surprised if there is actually any instance when a reader has tossed a book across the room, declaring, “Enough with the adverbs, already.” And the fact is that I don’t feel so high and mighty about my personal preferences that I feel the need to brow-beat anyone around me who might do things differently. What it comes down to for me is, they are tools in your toolbox. Use them if you deem fit. Focus on the story, that’s more important than anything. JK Rowling seems to use the adverbs and adjectives about as often as she uses commas, and she’s probably about as rich as the Queen of England now.
Interpret what you will in that.
NEVER USE THE PASSIVE VOICE!!!!!!
The old stand by, never use the passive voice. I think that this is a classic “workshop note”, in that when you submit a story for review in a writers workshop, you will inevitably end up with at least one person admonishing you on your use of the passive voice. I think that this is because it’s one of the easiest criticisms to make because you can usually find at least some of it. What exactly is the passive voice? Basically, take a standard sentence like, Chad drank the vodka. That’s written in active voice, it’s simple and to the point. In a passive voice construction, the target of the verb is flipped around to make it look like its the subject of the sentence and you get a weaker phrasing like, the vodka was drunk by Chad. It’s conveying the same information, just in less effective fashion.
Again, I don’t love passive voice and, as before with the “ad” words, I would use it sparingly or for specific reasons, but I also think it’s being unreasonable to just ban it from the party altogether. Sometimes a passive sentence works better, sometimes it has a better feel for the mood you are trying to accomplish. Ultimately, if that’s the way the words feel right to you, then go for it, don’t worry if it’s going to pass some other writer’s literary pre-flight checklist. For example, politicians often speak in the passive voice, do you have any of those in your story? I think for the most part the active voice is better, and is something that your readers will be more likely to relate to. After all, when you finish reading this, you will be probably going to be saying, Chad wasted my time with this essay, as opposed to, My time was wasted by Chad. But passive voice can have its place as well.
There are other examples to be sure, but I think that these have been enough for me to get my general point across. Rules are fine. I don’t have a problem with them, but I tend to have the kind of personality that if you tell me that I’m not allowed to do something, chances are I am going to immediately to that thing. My problem is not with rules, necessarily but in how they are applied. Many times, when I see the rules being thrown around, they often seem to be used as weapons as opposed to aids. I see too many writers using their rules as a way to methodically point out to less experienced writers why they are no good. When I see writers acting that way, it’s hard to believe that down deep, they aren’t really just saying,
I DON’T LIKE ME!!!!!!
Every writer has their own path to take, their own method and perspective to find. Think back on all the groundbreaking authors that have influenced you and I would be willing to bet that more than once, they had someone tell them that they couldn’t write that way. Now obviously, that’s not to say that every person who breaks the rules is destined for literary greatness, but I don’t think that any of us are so whiz-bang amazing, that we have the right to grant or deny permission to people to tell the story they want to tell.
Write your stories people! Look to those around you for inspiration and guidance and advice, but don’t let them so far in the door that one day you wake up and find that you’ve ceded all control of your work to other sensibilities. Believe in yourself and the rest will follow.
He said, bracingly.
