Five Common Problems

[BWFoster78]

Steerpike,

This is the section that I specifically quoted above:

You are using too many words to say too few things. And the words you’re using are too big, or poorly chosen, or feel awkward. You’re using exposition where you don’t need any. You’re invoking description that is redundant or unnecessary. You’re giving your characters a wealth of mechanical details and actions that go well-beyond a few gestures and into the territory of telegraphing every eyebrow arch, every lip twitch, every action beat of picking up a coffee mug, blowing on it, sipping from it, setting it back down, picking it back up, drinking from it, on and on.

 

[Steerpike]

You've never seen books that do those things? Exposition when it isn't needed? You could probably point to an instance of that in any novel-length work. Amount of detail to describe character and actions also runs the gamut. Seriously, pick up something other than the generic, fast-read commercial fiction you seem to think makes up the world of writing.

 

[BWFoster78]

I'm saying that I've read the first page of a bunch of self-published novels where the authors committed all those mistakes to one degree or another and that I understand exactly what Chuck is saying. The level that these problems appear in the kinds of works he is addressing is simply not okay for professional publication.

 

[Mythopoet]

I understand that, for some reason, you don't want there to be any absolutes when it comes to writing.

Why are you so intent that there must be absolutes when it comes to writing? You maintain that you cannot understand the "no rules" crowd. But I, quite honestly, cannot understand you. Just look around you at the world of reading and writing and storytelling in general and open your eyes. Of course there are no absolutes! That's just not how it works. I feel like this should be common sense.

 

[Steerpike]

Of course there are no absolutes! That's just not how it works. I feel like this should be common sense.

It is.

Noah Lukeman, who is a well-known editor, wrote a book called "The First Five Pages," which is designed to teach a writer to write a specific type of fiction (or at least to improve upon writing it). He starts that book by noting that it is "ridiculous" to put forth a set of rules for writing, and that most of the great artists broke the rules all the time (and in fact that may be part of what made them great). He then continues with the book, which gives his ideas of how, on par, to give a piece of commercial fiction a better chance of getting out of the slush pile at an editor.

Even the people who write books on writing don't pretend there are absolute rules. I suspect if you could discuss Wendig's post with him, he'd say the same thing and that he's talking about a specific type of story.

 

[Mythopoet]

Even the people who write books on writing don't pretend there are absolute rules. I suspect if you could discuss Wendig's post with him, he'd say the same thing and that he's talking about a specific type of story.

That's likely. But when writers use words like "rules" or talk about "problem" without making sure to qualify their opinion, it misleads a lot of impressionable new writers who really do believe that you can NEVER, EVER use an adverb. I've read too many of their blogs that show just how keen they are to abide by every rule and bit of advice they find in the irrepressible hope that it will help them get published. That's why it annoys me when writers express things in an absolute fashion. Too many people don't have the common sense to see that the creative act of entertaining readers CAN'T be absolute.

 

[Steerpike]

That's likely. But when writers use words like "rules" or talk about "problem" without making sure to qualify their opinion, it misleads a lot of impressionable new writers who really do believe that you can NEVER, EVER use an adverb. I've read too many of their blogs that show just how keen they are to abide by every rule and bit of advice they find in the irrepressible hope that it will help them get published. That's why it annoys me when writers express things in an absolute fashion. Too many people don't have the common sense to see that the creative act of entertaining readers CAN'T be absolute.

Yes. That's my problem with it as well. It creates a false impression among new writers who don't know better, and it can certainly harm their development. The problem, as you can see in this thread, is not only that people who promote "rules" won't qualify their language, but actively oppose anyone else pointing out that it should be qualified.

 

[Feo Takahari]

@Foster: There's this thing that comes up a lot with you where either you say something broad and sweeping, or you quote someone who's saying something broad and sweeping. If I take you literally, I mention a specific work that violates the rule or principle in question, and then you say that what you're saying or quoting isn't that broad and sweeping. When someone else takes you literally, what results is most frequently a long and boring debate that comes down to an issue of semantics. You don't seem to enjoy generating seven pages of argument over trifles--in fact, you often seem rather frustrated that other people don't get what you really mean--so why not try to head it off at the pass?

In this case, you weren't the one who initially posted the link, but you do seem to have a grasp of what Wendig's really trying to say. In that case, it's better to explain what Wendig's saying, not to tell people they're wrong because they disagree with what's apparently a misinterpretation of his statements. (Seriously, you keep saying that "these things" are not acceptable, but they don't seem to be the same things Steerpike's talking about, so what's the point of this whole argument?)

 

[deilaitha]

I love this quote:

It’s very cool to be asked to do that, because rarely do I have the opportunity to crush souls and milk dreams of their precious dreamjuice in person. Like, I could critique a page and even though the manuscripts were blind and I did not know to whom they belonged, I could still gaze out into the audience and find the author there, eyes wet and trembling as I bit into their writing with my dread incisors. And then I bellowed “DOOM” and ate the ashen pages as they wept.

Regarding the stuff about trimming--I used to really get irritated by the whole, "trim! trim! trim!" thing every time I saw it. I thought, "How can I describe things so people can see them if I have to trim as much as possible?" However, right now I am reading a book called Word Painting by Rebecca McClanahan--it's all about describing things vividly, beautifully, and poetically. She focuses on being concise instead of wordy--one can still write delicious, elegant prose this way, and she certainly does. Even her written directions are beautiful! Thanks to her, I've learned that trim, tight writing is not laconic or poor in detail. Rather, it's even richer and more colorful than ostentatiously loquacious writing that tries to include every little thing.

Learning to accept that has meant swallowing my pride. I'm not a "beginning writer," so to catch myself making a rookie mistake really hurt. But if McClanahan's process analysis writing is so rich and gorgeous, I can certainly make my story like that.

[Also, I should get like 10 points for ostentatiously loquacious by using the expression "ostentatiously loquacious."]

 

[deilaitha]

Hi,

I quite like it. The point I agree with most strongly is number five - getting the f*** out of the way of your story. He's right on the money here. As a reader when I read a story I read a story. I'm not particularly interested in the literary merit of the prose. I don't read James Joyce as he says. I read a story. And if even the most brilliant prose gets in the way of me falling under the spell of the story, it's a failure.

I also like his view that character is everything. I'm not sure he's completely right. Certainly I think a lot of hard sci fi seems to try and do away with this element to an extent and you sometimes end up with something that reads almost like a fictionalised newspaper report. Witness descriptions, historical accounts but little in the way of actual human conection. Which is ironic in a way since one of the things historical scholars have been actively trying to do is bring historical figures to life.

The one I would take issue with is the totally overwriting. Sure it does happen. But it is a matter of style more than anything else. Some people want to do major descriptive narrative, and some people want to read it. This is especially true in the epic fantasy world. I mean would you take Stephen Donaldson's Thomas Covenant and pair back the word build and characterisation. And if you were brutal could probably strip the books down by half. But should you? Would what you were left with even be a book? And what about Moby Dick where the characterisation is everything? Or Tolkein?

Points to think about for certain. But as I've said before - there are no hard and fast rules to writing.

Cheers, Greg.

Greg, I think what you are hitting on with the character vs. other elements is summed up by Orson Scott Card's discussion of the M.I.C.E. (Milieu, Idea, Character, and Event) quotient in writing. He says,

It is a mistake to think that "good characterization" is the same thing in every work of fiction. Different kinds of stories require different kinds of characters.

But what are the different kinds of stories? Forget about publishing genres for a moment [...] Instead, we'll look at four basic factors that are present in every story, with varying degrees of emphasis. It is the balance among these factors that determines what sort of characterization a story must have, should have, or can have.

The four factors are milieu, idea, character, and event.

[...]

These factors usually overlap. Character A is part of the milieu surrounding character B. The idea in the story may include information about some aspect of the milieu, and the discovery of an idea can also be an event in the tale.

Each factor is present in all stories, to one degree or another. Every factor has an implicit structure; if that factor dominates a story, its structure determines the overall shape of the story.

(62-63, emphasis original) Work Cited: Card, Orson Scott. Characters and Viewpoint. Cincinatti, Ohio: Writer's Digest Books, 2010.

 

[deilaitha]

@Mythopoet and Steerpike,

I think that the "rules" of writing are more like really, really good suggestions to follow. I think that they are good to keep in mind, and I really truly think that writers can benefit from them.

That being said, you have to know the rules in order to break them. Once you know the rules, they set you free to be creative and expand beyond them, even by breaking a few of (or most of) them if you want.

Rules are good and helpful, but they are not the end-all-be-all of writing. They're guideposts along the way. Even then, the rules are subjective. I think that there's some healthy balance of rules vs. no rules to be found, don't you?

 

[Mythopoet]

@Mythopoet and Steerpike,

I think that the "rules" of writing are more like really, really good suggestions to follow. I think that they are good to keep in mind, and I really truly think that writers can benefit from them.

Which is all well and good if that's what they were saying. But usually these things are expressed "this is how this works" and "don't do this" and "do this" and so on. The word "rules" has strong connotations of "if you don't listen to this you're doing it wrong" or "if you don't follow this what you're doing won't work." They usually aren't presented as "suggestions". And keep in mind that the people writing this stuff are usually people who make their living by the written word. They should know how to communicate their intent better if their intent truly is to make "suggestions."

That being said, you have to know the rules in order to break them. Once you know the rules, they set you free to be creative and expand beyond them, even by breaking a few of (or most of) them if you want.

That may be true, but all too often the "rules" are presented as simplified absolutes, not as guideposts reached by careful reasoning. Take, for example, the common rule against adverbs. More often than not, the rule is presented this way:

Don't use adverbs.

Now, an intelligent fellow can sit back and think about what adverbs are and how they're used and come to some reasonable theories about why they are frowned upon. However, in this example, as many plausible theories as he comes up with, he will never know the reason that the experienced person had for forbidding them. Because the experienced person didn't give a reason but instead used their "authority" as an experienced writer to give credence to the so-called rule.

And there are many, many inexperienced writers who will take the rule to heart exactly as stated. They will immediately rush off to their WIP and delete all adverbs. They will in turn tell others that you shouldn't use adverbs. They may critique other writers' work and gravely point out all the uses of adverbs as something wrong.

I'm not exaggerating. I used to spend a lot of time reading other aspiring writers' blogs. I've seen them do this. I've seen public critiques of a scene where the critiquer (who usually has no more experience than the one being critiqued) highlighted ALL the adverbs as mistakes without giving any reasoning or justification at all. Just, "This is an adverb. Don't use them."

These stupid, over the top "rules" get passed around and spread throughout the new writer community after starting, usually, with an experienced writer or industry professional who doesn't explain that their "rules" are really suggestions or guideposts or doesn't explain what their reasoning behind them is. That's why I disapprove of such lists. They mislead too many people. That's why I like to take the time to point out that there are no absolutes in creative fiction.

I should probably point out that I'm not saying any of this directly at Chuck Wendig or his post. (I already said everything I need to say about his post in my first comment in this thread.) This was all on the general subject of "rules" in writing and writers giving out advice that isn't clearly advice.

 

[Philip Overby]

It might not be an exact quote, but now I'm in love with "downtime between awesomeness" as both a phrase and a concept!

Which article did I say that? I'm forgetting things I'm saying now.

We are having a lot of rules vs. no rules discussions again. I think they're good discussions to have because it ultimately gives us options as writers. If some writers want to follow rules, cool. If some don't want to and rather view them as suggestions, cool. If some writers don't want to do any of that, cool.

I think sometimes writing communities or blog followers become a hive mind that just say, "So and so said this so it's true." I love a lot of Wendig's advice, but I ultimately have to decide if I think his points should go in my tool box or not. I believe writers need to start making more concrete decisions themselves instead of always looking to someone else to say, "Yeah, that's right." This may go back to the issue of "there's too much dreck out there because people aren't following rules." I think it's more like "dreck exists because people rush." Writing takes a lot of time, but not too much time. It's like a balancing act of making yourself happy, making readers happy, and making sense. That's not something that's going to happen just by saying, "Great, I won't use adverbs anymore."

 

[Amanita]

I'm always curious about authors' opinions about good stories and such have read the post in question.
He has a point with the first one. If I'm trying out a new book, I usually tend to scan the first page both for stylistic issues I dislike as well as blatant cliches or implications that this will be one of the story types I like or dislike. Most of the time, I skim more than the first page before making a decision though, I'm a rather quick reader. Someone who's doing this as job with countless of books might only read the first one. I'm quite sure that the things on a first page that would make me not buy the book aren't the same for everyone though.
Two is a matter of style and up to each writer to choose in my opinion.

"You're not James Joyce"

Who knows? Or rather, who knows I'm not an author trying for this kind of style?
Three I can agree with. Plots are usually not that unique, especially in fantasy. The characters (and to some extent the world-building) bring them to life.
I don't think four is an absolute, probably depends on what you consider "something happening".
With five, I have to admit that I don't really get what he's trying to tell me, so no comment on that.

I generally dislike the condescending tone of the piece, and yes, I take the right to say so.

 

[BWFoster78]

Even the people who write books on writing don't pretend there are absolute rules. I suspect if you could discuss Wendig's post with him, he'd say the same thing and that he's talking about a specific type of story.

Steerpike,

Every year on January 1, I resolve to make no New Year's resolutions. That statement amuses me to no end because, obviously, by resolving not to make a resolution, I'm breaking it.

Saying that there are no absolutes is the same thing. "There are no absolutes" is an absolute statement. Either it's true and breaks itself or it's not true because other absolutes exist.

Logical fallicies aside, it makes no sense to me that there are no absolutes. Let's start here:

Absolute Number 1: A writer must use letters in combination in such a way that someone other than the author can comprehend.

If you say that AN1 is not an absolute rule of writing, check out my next masterpiece:

fdjaotgjhow'tga**()Y*(&U)h;Ahbiopahtuioqa HOthaioptui9paujht80oqhqigvbjoAO{

Truthfully, though, absolutes aren't the issue. Nor are "rules."

As far as I can tell, the main issue between us is the following (please correct me if I'm wrong on this):

Steerpike's concern: Stating that "a writer must do THIS," either by the use of rules or absolutes, stifles an aspiring author's unique style. After all, if something must be done in one way, then it can't be done uniquely.

Brian's concern: There are huge numbers of people who have no understanding of even the basics of how to write fiction who are publishing books. Worse, these people have no idea that what they've produced is unreadable. Since they don't even know what they don't know, they have little chance of improving and, thus, little chance of actually realizing their dreams of producing good books. If there are no rules and no absolutes, the message that "hey, you need to learn how to write if you want to succeed" is weakened.

The thing is that we seem to have a lot of actual agreement, when talking about a particular piece, about whether it works or not.

As Feo suggested, I'm trying to get to the root issue instead of discussing the same issues over and over again. Where can we find common ground?

 

[Steerpike]

Brian:

I'm glad to see you summoned the spectre of logical fallacy. It it helpful to understand the subject matter prior to such a conjuration. Let's see if there is any logical fallacy in a statement that there are no absolute rules of writing.

There is a logical fallacy inherent in an absolute statement of the type that belongs to Set A, where the statement precludes absolutes belonging to Set A. The preceding sentence explains your error. We are talking about stylistic rules of writing. Do this, or don't do that. The statement that there are no absolutes among such rules is not, in and of itself, a stylistic rule of writing. It does not belong to Set A, and therefore does not pose a logical fallacy when referring to Set A in the manner used. It's not even close to the situation of saying "There are no absolutes," as an overarching general principle, which is something no one has said and isn't even within the scope of this discussion (and makes me again wonder whether you actually read and/or think about other people's points before dashing off to reply to them, or whether you're just being argumentative for the sake of it).

I hope that clears things up. Calling out "logical fallacy" is an old favorite on the internet when you don't have an argument or don't understand what someone else is saying. Let's just put that one to rest for a bit.

Getting to the substantive point that you finally make your way around to, I don't believe that pointing out that the so-called rules of writing are guidelines or suggestions that may be useful in some cases and not in others will do anything to cause someone to say "hey, this is great. I don't have to learn to write to be a successful writer!" What is your reasoning for thinking that telling new writers the truth would result in a rampant tide of the unwashed launching themselves naively into writing careers with the idea that they don't have to learn the first thing about writing to succeed? Seems like a fantasy to me (though I suppose this is a fantasy forum).

 

[BWFoster78]

Steerpike,

I'm a bit incredulous right now.

Mythopoet, in a statement that you agreed to, stated:

Of course there are no absolutes!

How do you then say:

"There are no absolutes," as an overarching general principle, which is something no one has said

Huh? Really?

I'm pretty much quoting Mythopoet verbatim. To say that no one has said it is ridiculous on your part. To then continue with this insult:

and makes me again wonder whether you actually read and/or think about other people's points before dashing off to reply to them, or whether you're just being argumentative for the sake of it

is beyond the pale.

Did you read the thread before making your response, or did you just "dash off to reply?"

 

[Mythopoet]

BW, what you are doing is removing one of my statements from the context of the paragraph in which you found it. Thus you create a strawman argument. Here's the entirety of that post from which you took that quote:

Why are you so intent that there must be absolutes when it comes to writing? You maintain that you cannot understand the "no rules" crowd. But I, quite honestly, cannot understand you. Just look around you at the world of reading and writing and storytelling in general and open your eyes. Of course there are no absolutes! That's just not how it works. I feel like this should be common sense.

You are willfully ignoring phrases such as "when it comes to writing" and "the world of reading and writing and storytelling" which show quite clearly that the context within which I am speaking is writing and storytelling, NOT reality at large. (For the record, in the context of life, the universe and everything, I believe in many absolutes.)

I can't tell whether you are genuinely misunderstanding people or whether you're being disingenuous.

 

[Steerpike]

Steerpike,

I'm a bit incredulous right now.

Mythopoet, in a statement that you agreed to, stated:



How do you then say:



Huh? Really?

I'm pretty much quoting Mythopoet verbatim. To say that no one has said it is ridiculous on your part. To then continue with this insult:



is beyond the pale.

Did you read the thread before making your response, or did you just "dash off to reply?"

The context of the thread is apparent to anyone reading it. Seriously, this is getting to the point of being ridiculous, and I can only assume you're being intellectually dishonest as a sort of tactic, in order to keep the argument going. There is no way any reasonable person can fail to "get" what we're talking about, and the context in which statements are made. Taking Mythopoet's statement as one of universal principle rather than a comment on writing rules is just ridiculous.

Far from supporting your statement of a personal insult, this last post just underscores my original statement that you don't think about what you're responding to before responding or else are being disingenuous. Those are the only explanations for your continued mischaracterization and misreading of posts.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

@Phil, I meant your most recent article. There was something about a character revealing a dragon in her bag. You didn't say downtime, you said... this:

“moments of rest” between the awesomeness

My experience is that reading the common problems worked as a wake-up call for me. I was slogging through my WIP as I was with the ones I scrapped, and basically, I was overthinking as I wrote--a problem I didn't have seven years ago. The "getting in your own way" comment really nailed it for me. I was trying to get fancy and artistic when all I really need to do is the story. In retrospect, it sounds so dumb.

That said, not everyone is guilty of getting their own way, and you could argue that several bestsellers tell more than show, have way more characters than needed, are over 300,000 words long, have large chunks of story that don't build up to anything, leave the reader wondering what just happened (is the POV character alive or dead?), use all caps for fat guys yelling, use ellipses to represent a pause in speech or a trailing thought... both of which are wrong, or so I've heard...

I LOVE* A Song of Ice and Fire, but A Dance with Dragons is guilty of everything in the above paragraph and, yes, I loved it, it was well-written, and I think GRRM is an inspiration to fantasy authors, self included. None of that changes the truth: GRRM breaks the rules. And no newbie writer is going to buy into the argument that the rules apply to you, newbie, but not the pros. I will always consider the words of the pros, but I won't buy into the implication that I didn't sell books; therefore, I don't know the rules well enough to break the them; therefore, I must follow the rules set by the pros. Likewise, I can't accept the statement that it's okay for Famous Author to break the rules because s/he knew the rules before s/he broke them.

The truth: Famous Author can do whatever the hell s/he wants because s/he has a loyal fan base.

For those who aren't quite where we want to be, there's plenty of advice out there to consider, but it's not there to blindly follow. When I followed the advice linked by the OP, it worked for me. But why I say it worked is because I am very excited about my 2400-word chapter now, whereas I was iffy about the 970-word scene that I wrote a few days ago. In other words, I still own my work, and I own my chances of success, and I'm the one who has to decide which of the great advice out there is most helpful to me.



*(I weigh over 200 pounds and was yelling the word "love.")