BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
Steerpike,
You said:
Though you didn't directly say that advice should be rejected due to the use of the word "rule," you do go through the trouble of calling out the issue that the word "rule" is misapplied.
My response, imo, is certainly a reasonable continuation of your argument regarding semantics. Speaking of which, if that's not what you believe, then what exactly was your point in bringing up the word "rule?"
Huh?
Did you read this:
How is that statement, a sentiment I've expressed numerous times in this thread, in any way indicative of "not questioning" rules?
What I'm advocating is giving rules their due consideration. There is a valid reason for "no adverbs." If one understands that valid reason and decides to use an adverb any way, I have absolutely no problem with that. I'm simply advocating that one fully understand the reasoning before rejecting the advice.
I'm not sure why in the world that position is in any way controversial.
My recollection, and it's been a while since that discussion and I'm too lazy to look it up, is that my primary objection was based on the principle of responsibility. A beta reader can only give feedback from their experience and from where they are on the learning curve. No matter the source, it is the author's responsibility to evaluate the appropriateness of any comment.
My recollection was that you wanted to place responsibility on the beta reader, not on the author.
While a beta reader should do the best job they can, I hesitate to offer any advice like what you advocated to beta readers because I feel that it would tend to discourage the act of critiquing.
Let's say that I decide to write a blog post to a generic newb telling them how to get started. I'd say that, in general, start by doing the following:
1. Be clear in your writing.
2. Show instead of Tell.
3. Lots of Tension.
I think that, if a newb can start with those three pieces of advice, it sets the foundation for getting their writing to a level where they can start getting productive feedback. I think that advice is incredibly helpful.
What is the alternative advice that you'd offer?
You said:
One problem is misuse of the word "rule." If what you have is a concept that you want someone to understand and then follow or not follow as they see fit based on that understanding, that's not a "rule."
Though you didn't directly say that advice should be rejected due to the use of the word "rule," you do go through the trouble of calling out the issue that the word "rule" is misapplied.
My response, imo, is certainly a reasonable continuation of your argument regarding semantics. Speaking of which, if that's not what you believe, then what exactly was your point in bringing up the word "rule?"
What it appears to me is that you want to be able to cite rules to writers without having them questioned or without having to provide any rationale for citing them
Huh?
Did you read this:
All most of us are saying is that you should first seek to understand fully the reasoning behind a "rule." After gaining an understanding of what benefit the rule grants you and what pitfalls not following the rule conveys, you can make an intelligent decision as to whether it is or is not worth adhering to the rule.
How is that statement, a sentiment I've expressed numerous times in this thread, in any way indicative of "not questioning" rules?
What I'm advocating is giving rules their due consideration. There is a valid reason for "no adverbs." If one understands that valid reason and decides to use an adverb any way, I have absolutely no problem with that. I'm simply advocating that one fully understand the reasoning before rejecting the advice.
I'm not sure why in the world that position is in any way controversial.
in fact, when I have previously suggested that a person providing a critique needs to think about what they're reading, whether a given rule is appropriate, and use some rationale in deciding whether or not to cite a rule, you objected to that idea
My recollection, and it's been a while since that discussion and I'm too lazy to look it up, is that my primary objection was based on the principle of responsibility. A beta reader can only give feedback from their experience and from where they are on the learning curve. No matter the source, it is the author's responsibility to evaluate the appropriateness of any comment.
My recollection was that you wanted to place responsibility on the beta reader, not on the author.
While a beta reader should do the best job they can, I hesitate to offer any advice like what you advocated to beta readers because I feel that it would tend to discourage the act of critiquing.
Blind parroting of rules-that-aren't-rules to beginning writers doesn't do them an ounce of good.
Let's say that I decide to write a blog post to a generic newb telling them how to get started. I'd say that, in general, start by doing the following:
1. Be clear in your writing.
2. Show instead of Tell.
3. Lots of Tension.
I think that, if a newb can start with those three pieces of advice, it sets the foundation for getting their writing to a level where they can start getting productive feedback. I think that advice is incredibly helpful.
What is the alternative advice that you'd offer?