TheCatholicCrow
Inkling
I saw this article on Buzzfeed and found it unreasonably hilarious. I have six sisters, all of which are big readers. To say that we're all huge Austen and Bronte fans would be an understatement. To give you an idea - as I write this one of them is literally nagging me because I haven't read Persuasion yet. I say this to frame it in context - I don't know if this is the most brilliant thing ever or if it just hits close to home.
Anyway ... I found it very amusing. I might be reading too much into it but I think it raises a good point about diluting and radically altering your writing based on critique feedback (as well as just how idiotic critiques can be at times). All of the modern Lit "rules" that people live and swear by have a tendency to make everything sound bland and repetitive. I have no doubt that The Tenant of Wildfell Hall would give many modern critiquers a heart attack - I literally counted eleven commas in one sentence. ELEVEN! That was just one of the sentences that caught my eye. There were probably longer ones in there. Every chapter seems to begin with a description of the weather and there are no shortage of adverbs or erudite vocabulary. Blatant violations of "rules" that we all know are supposed to make your writing "weak".
Many of the Classics violate these rules yet I would wager they are stronger than the average book on the shelves of B&N which was presumably written with the "rules" in mind.
Some Classics are better than others but I would like to see writers (and readers) reading more of them and finding inspiration between the pages of the masters - that is - to return literature to an artistic form rather than viewing it as a means for profit. [Wow - that sounded so Indie.] The point I'm trying to make here is that not everything should blindly follow the "rules" and just because books don't follow them doesn't mean they're "weak".
That being said, I would make an exception for Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter which was probably the worst thing I've ever read. The narrative voice was obnoxiously heavy handed - literally telling the reader who they're supposed to sympathize with (the weasel minister who victimizes his lover & the unfaithful wife who hates her spouse- the only one justified in being pissed with her). The "villain" is supposed to be Chillingworth- the only character I actually felt sympathy for. But Hawthorne spent more time dictating to the reader the exact emotions and reactions we were supposed to be having than actually allowing us to experience the piece and come to these conclusions on our own. A great case that would have benefited from "Show, don't tell" - I regard this book with great disdain- does it show?
But in general ... we have all of these modern rules that are supposed to make our writing stronger ... but is that really the case? Do you think rules are for newbies or should everyone follow them?
Should we follow the "rules" and hope for success or should we say "screw it all" and write for ourselves? Do the "rules" really make our writing better or does it just add stress and constrain our creativity? Any thoughts?
Anyway ... I found it very amusing. I might be reading too much into it but I think it raises a good point about diluting and radically altering your writing based on critique feedback (as well as just how idiotic critiques can be at times). All of the modern Lit "rules" that people live and swear by have a tendency to make everything sound bland and repetitive. I have no doubt that The Tenant of Wildfell Hall would give many modern critiquers a heart attack - I literally counted eleven commas in one sentence. ELEVEN! That was just one of the sentences that caught my eye. There were probably longer ones in there. Every chapter seems to begin with a description of the weather and there are no shortage of adverbs or erudite vocabulary. Blatant violations of "rules" that we all know are supposed to make your writing "weak".
Many of the Classics violate these rules yet I would wager they are stronger than the average book on the shelves of B&N which was presumably written with the "rules" in mind.
Some Classics are better than others but I would like to see writers (and readers) reading more of them and finding inspiration between the pages of the masters - that is - to return literature to an artistic form rather than viewing it as a means for profit. [Wow - that sounded so Indie.] The point I'm trying to make here is that not everything should blindly follow the "rules" and just because books don't follow them doesn't mean they're "weak".
That being said, I would make an exception for Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter which was probably the worst thing I've ever read. The narrative voice was obnoxiously heavy handed - literally telling the reader who they're supposed to sympathize with (the weasel minister who victimizes his lover & the unfaithful wife who hates her spouse- the only one justified in being pissed with her). The "villain" is supposed to be Chillingworth- the only character I actually felt sympathy for. But Hawthorne spent more time dictating to the reader the exact emotions and reactions we were supposed to be having than actually allowing us to experience the piece and come to these conclusions on our own. A great case that would have benefited from "Show, don't tell" - I regard this book with great disdain- does it show?
But in general ... we have all of these modern rules that are supposed to make our writing stronger ... but is that really the case? Do you think rules are for newbies or should everyone follow them?
Should we follow the "rules" and hope for success or should we say "screw it all" and write for ourselves? Do the "rules" really make our writing better or does it just add stress and constrain our creativity? Any thoughts?
Last edited: