# Elmore Leonard's 10 "Rules" of Writing



## Steerpike (Jun 26, 2012)

1. Never open a book with the weather.
2. Avoid prologues.
3. Never use a verb other than “said” to carry dialogue.
4. Never use an adverb to modify the verb “said.”
5. Keep your exclamation points under control!
6. Never use the words “suddenly” or “all hell broke loose.”
7. Use regional dialect, patois,  sparingly.
8.Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.
9.Same for places and things.
10. Leave out the parts readers tend to skip.

You can find him expanding on them a bit more, here: WRITERS ON WRITING; Easy on the Adverbs, Exclamation Points and Especially Hooptedoodle - New York Times

I can't say I disagree with any of these. If you're going for a more artistic style, along the lines of a Peake or Nabokov, these don't work of course. But in general I think these are good guidelines (there are no rules).


----------



## JonSnow (Jun 26, 2012)

#2 and #6 caught my eye... first I think a prologue is SOMETIMES necessary. For instance, if you are setting a backdrop for the story using an event that happened many years in the past, a Prologue is a more fitting way to include that history, rather than using it as chapter 1, where those characters and/or places may never be heard from again. It would seem really out of place. The reader expects the prologue to be something different from the main body of the story. That being said, the prologue shouldn't be 25 pages long, either. 

In regards to #6, I think the "all hell broke loose" is a good example of what a lot of writers do by accident (myself included, though I catch myself more often through experience). These cliches or sayings like "all hell broke loose", "hot summer night", "two peas in a pod", "smelled like roses", "crystal clear", or "plain as day" should be avoided all together. If you want to use quips or cliches, make up your own. You don't want the reader to snap out of their reading world by hearing some saying their mother used the other day.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 26, 2012)

I agree with you regarding #6, JonSnow. An exception would be first person POV, I suppose, where maybe the viewpoint character is prone to using cliches.

I don't agree regarding #2, however. I don't think a prologue is ever necessary. Sometimes they are used effectively, many time they are not, but I can't think of a situation where you absolutely have to have one. But people who know me around here know I don't like prologues. I'll put a book with a prologue back on the shelf a good portion of the time; or maybe I'll skip the prologue and go straight to the story in chapter 1. If it is really well done, I'll read it. If it is merely a vehicle for providing background to the reader, I'm not interested.


----------



## ProfessorBrainfever (Jun 26, 2012)

My NiP has a prologue.

I say, if you're going to use one, make it necessary. Writing off all prologues is quite silly, in my humble opinion.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 26, 2012)

"Necessary" to me indicates that the author had no choice but to include one, because there is no other way to impart the information from the prologue to the reader. I can't think of a situation in which that would be the case.

I'll read a prologue in some circumstances, but it certainly counts as a strike against any book I pick up. My experience is that I tend not to like them, so all other things being equal I'd rather read something that doesn't have one. As I noted above, though, I have actually bought books with prologues and just skipped the whole prologue and started right in with chapter 1.


----------



## ProfessorBrainfever (Jun 26, 2012)

So, is it the fact that they're called 'prologues' that you object to? Would calling it 'Chapter 1' change your opinion? Or is it that they (generally) take place a certain amount of time before the next chapter?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jun 26, 2012)

I think the point concerning prologues can be stated another way. 

A really good story with spine-tingling tension and anxiety causing conflict is immediate and urgent in how it is felt & experienced by the reader. A prologue offers information from the past or from distant locales, both far removed from the current action & intrigue.

If you're writing a prologue I think you should ask yourself two questions. 

Can I relay this information in the main body of the story where it will have more immediate impact or am I just being lazy in my efforts to get the information out there? 

Will there be increased tension as my characters discover this information as the story moves along?

If you can answer those questions honestly and still feel a prologue is the only way to dole out this part of the tale then I'd say you have grounds to write a prologue. Otherwise, it's probably better to get it across in another way.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 26, 2012)

ProfessorBrainfever said:


> So, is it the fact that they're called 'prologues' that you object to? Would calling it 'Chapter 1' change your opinion? Or is it that they (generally) take place a certain amount of time before the next chapter?



It's the fact that they're generally a bunch of boring backstory that I don't want or need to know yet, because I want to get straight into the story. I don't care if the author called it a prologue, chapter 1, or a ham sandwich. It's what the author tends to do with it that I don't like. The word "prologue" is just a convenient way for the author to tell me "OK, now I'm going to tell you a bunch of stuff that happened before the story." As a rule, I'd just rather get to the story. 

It's a generalization. Not all prologues are like that, but I seem to come across many that are.


----------



## ProfessorBrainfever (Jun 26, 2012)

Maybe we're just reading different things? I don't remember most of the prologues I read having that quality to them.

When I think of them, I think of the first chapter of 'Game of Thrones'. It's not called a prologue, but that's essentially what it is, and it's an action-filled hint of the story to come that gives the flavor of the world without boring you.

Perhaps this is less an argument between 'prologues' and 'no prologues' than it is an argument between 'good prologues' and 'bad prologues'.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jun 26, 2012)

ProfessorBrainfever said:
			
		

> Maybe we're just reading different things? I don't remember most of the prologues I read having that quality to them.
> 
> When I think of them, I think of the first chapter of 'Game of Thrones'. It's not called a prologue, but that's essentially what it is, and it's an action-filled hint of the story to come that gives the flavor of the world without boring you.
> 
> Perhaps this is less an argument between 'prologues' and 'no prologues' than it is an argument between 'good prologues' and 'bad prologues'.



I agree that this chapter in GoT was good..... Why would he choose to do that?

First reason I thought of was because it enabled him to accomplish 2 different things. One, show that there was something sinister looming but more importantly, lead into the scene where Bran witnesses his father beheading the deserter.

Also, we're not talking about a massive span of time or distance here either. We're talking about 2 bordering realms and a deserter that is captured not long after the action scene your referencing. That being the case, it is still immediate the the story.

I wouldn't place that in the category of prologues that show me something "relevant" a hundred years earlier.


----------



## Devor (Jun 26, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> 2. Avoid prologues.
> 3. Never use a verb other than “said” to carry dialogue.
> 4. Never use an adverb to modify the verb “said.”
> 
> ...



I completely disagree with these rules.  I think they're an excuse for people who can't write well to leave out the parts of their writing which make that obvious.  Nothing beats a good character description, in my opinion.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 26, 2012)

Devor said:


> I completely disagree with these rules.  I think they're an excuse for people who can't write well to leave out the parts of their writing which make that obvious.  Nothing beats a good character description, in my opinion.



Defensive much? I think you can accuse Elmore Leonard of a number of things, but not being able to write is not among them. I agree with most of these, including the bit about character description. It is just possible that people with a view differing from yours can still write.


----------



## J. S. Elliot (Jun 26, 2012)

I would be inclined to agree with you, Devor. Most of those "rules" apply only to vanilla writing styles. And most of those, like with many classics, fail to draw me in. However, there are still some that can manage ... it's just not as easy as it is with books that actually make an effort at painting the world.


----------



## Black Dragon (Jun 26, 2012)

While I'm not a fan of writing "rules," I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss anything that Elmore Leonard has to say.  He's one of the most exceptional authors of our era.

Have you seen the FX series Justified?  It's based on Elmore Leonard's books, and he produces it and writes some of the episodes.  It's fascinating and entertaining.  He manages to create over-the-top characters who are also believable and sympathetic.


----------



## Robert Donnell (Jun 26, 2012)

Suddenly all hell broke loose! I now have an opening for my new book!


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 26, 2012)

Good lesson on the dangers of over description, and too much waffle, and not knowing what to do...

Knightmare - Series 1 - clip 1 - YouTube

(seemed to fit in here for some reason)


----------



## ShortHair (Jun 26, 2012)

In defense of prologues, another "rule" is to open the story with the widest viewpoint you'll ever use. It's not always possible to do that with the elements you use to begin the story, especially with a first-person narrator. To follow that rule, then, you almost have to have a prologue.

And another thing. A good prologue will draw in the reader, just as the main story should. If the reader doesn't like your prologue, chances are s/he won't like the story. The exception is when the writer tosses off the prologue as an afterthought or as an infodump for everything s/he couldn't shoehorn into the narrative. That may be the reason some people don't like prologues.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 26, 2012)

Black Dragon said:


> While I'm not a fan of writing "rules," I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss anything that Elmore Leonard has to say.  He's one of the most exceptional authors of our era.



Yeah, I don't think I've ever heard a writing rule that wasn't more of a guideline or suggestion, and depended on the style of writing desired. Maybe "don't bore the reader" is a good "rule."


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 26, 2012)

SeleneHime said:


> I would be inclined to agree with you, Devor. Most of those "rules" apply only to vanilla writing styles. And most of those, like with many classics, fail to draw me in. However, there are still some that can manage ... it's just not as easy as it is with books that actually make an effort at painting the world.



I don't care much about whether it is easy or not. I don't mind doing some of the work as a reader; in fact, I would rather use my imagination to fill in the details of the world and the characters. I like a few choice descriptions from the writer, as a general rule, particularly when it comes to characters. I tend to develop an image of a character in my head very early on, and if the writer keeps throwing layers of detail at me it conflicts with the picture I already have in my head and I just disregard it.

There are exceptions, of course. My handle on these forums comes from books by Mervyn Peake. It would be hard to find a more densely descriptive fantasy work than his Gormenghast books. But Peake's skill with language is rare. If you have that kind of skill, then by all means describe away. If the descriptions are artful, poetic, or enthralling in their way, I'll read them all night long. Most of the books you find on the shelf aren't written by writers who have that kind of skill with description. They're more or less stale recitations. In those cases I'd rather see less of it than more.


----------



## Devor (Jun 26, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Defensive much? I think you can accuse Elmore Leonard of a number of things, but not being able to write is not among them.



I didn't mean to comment about the writing quality of Elmore Leonard, whom I've never read.  But skipping prologues, not using dialogue tags, and cutting out descriptions are not good advice to give to all writers.  Taken together, they create a particular kind of writing style, which is prone to its own often ignored flaws, like an over-reliance on dialogue and a narration that's often shallow.  In particular, "said" can be as much a hindrance in an action scene, where dialogue tags help to bridge the momentum between dialogue and action.




> I agree with most of these, including the bit about character description. It is just possible that people with a view differing from yours can still write.



The same could be said to anyone giving this kind of advice.


----------



## JonSnow (Jun 26, 2012)

To elaborate on my slight disagreement with the "No Prologue" rule... I didn't see any other way, in my book, to include a particular part of the story, other than to put it into the prologue. It happened 15 years before the actual "book" itself begins, but set off a course of events that were pivotal for a number of characters. To make this prologue into "chapter one" would have seemed completely out of place, given that it happened so long ago, and included 3 non-central characters-- one of whom the reader will only see once later on, one who won't appear until approximately halfway through book 2 (I project it to be at least a 3 book series), and another who has gone completely crazy and probably doesn't remember it. There was really no way for me to recall the events through a character's memory, without putting in a prologue set 15 years in the past. So yes, I did see it as necessary.

I tend to think rules 8 and 9 (too much detail for characters and places) are pretty sound advice. Obviously you have to give some details, including anything significant or major (such as hair color, a scar, height, skin tone, voice, etc). But at the same time, you should let the reader's imagination do some of the work. Let them decide on the fine details. In a way, it makes the characters more appealing because they can mold their appearance slightly to what they are attracted (or unattracted) to.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 26, 2012)

Devor said:


> Taken together, they create a particular kind of writing style, which is prone to its own often ignored flaws, like an over-reliance on dialogue and a narration that's often shallow.



Those aren't necessarily flaws. It is a legitimate style of writing in the same manner as heavily descriptive works represent a legitimate stylistic decision. It may not appeal to you, but that doesn't make it flawed writing.


----------



## J. S. Elliot (Jun 26, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I don't care much about whether it is easy or not. I don't mind doing some of the work as a reader; in fact, I would rather use my imagination to fill in the details of the world and the characters. I like a few choice descriptions from the writer, as a general rule, particularly when it comes to characters. I tend to develop an image of a character in my head very early on, and if the writer keeps throwing layers of detail at me it conflicts with the picture I already have in my head and I just disregard it.
> 
> There are exceptions, of course. My handle on these forums comes from books by Mervyn Peake. It would be hard to find a more densely descriptive fantasy work than his Gormenghast books. But Peake's skill with language is rare. If you have that kind of skill, then by all means describe away. If the descriptions are artful, poetic, or enthralling in their way, I'll read them all night long. Most of the books you find on the shelf aren't written by writers who have that kind of skill with description. They're more or less stale recitations. In those cases I'd rather see less of it than more.



It's not so much that I don't want to 'work' when I read, but the characters themselves are what seem dry in most classics - which are often written in a very vanilla style. You can have the greatest plot in the world, but if your characters don't "pop" off the page, it doesn't amount to much. (I will, however, be sure to look for the titles you mentioned.)


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 26, 2012)

JonSnow said:


> To elaborate on my slight disagreement with the "No Prologue" rule... I didn't see any other way, in my book, to include a particular part of the story, other than to put it into the prologue. It happened 15 years before the actual "book" itself begins, but set off a course of events that were pivotal for a number of characters.



Well, ultimately you have to go with what you feel best as the author, and if that's a prologue, then so be it. But you could impart the same information to the reader through exposition in the story proper, or through dialogue between characters discussing the event from 15 years ago, and so on. If no character was around to witness it, and thus the event itself is completely unknown to the characters, then there is nothing wrong with leaving it unknown to the reader as well, and letting the reader learn about it when the characters do. But it is a choice of style, and you have to go with what speaks to you.


----------



## Devor (Jun 26, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Those aren't necessarily flaws. It is a legitimate style of writing in the same manner as heavily descriptive works represent a legitimate stylistic decision. It may not appeal to you, but that doesn't make it flawed writing.



Maybe if I had said "heavy dialogue" and "light narration," but I said _prone to_ "over-reliance" and being "shallow."  I wasn't talking about the style, but the weaknesses which the style is prone to.  If a more detailed writing style is prone to boring descriptions and using dialogue tags to carry their dialogue, then the style you're referring to also has its own weaknesses which I think are more often ignored.

Nor have I said that you _must_ include prologues and character descriptions.  You are the one with rules using a lot of _"never"s_, and that's what I'm responding to.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 26, 2012)

Devor said:


> Maybe if I had said "heavy dialogue" and "light narration," but I said _prone to_ "over-reliance" and being "shallow."  I wasn't talking about the style, but the weaknesses which the style is prone to.  If a more detailed writing style is prone to boring descriptions and using dialogue tags to carry their dialogue, then the style you're referring to also has its own weaknesses which I think are more often ignored.
> 
> Nor have I said that you _must_ include prologues and character descriptions.  You are the one with rules using a lot of _"never"s_, and that's what I'm responding to.



So your complaint is more about bad writing than the "rules" Leonard suggests. In other words, if the writing is good and follows them, I assume you don't have a problem with it.

I think on the whole these guidelines are more likely to lead writers to producing a piece of good writing than not. That doesn't mean everyone should follow them or any other rules, but as general statements I think they're pretty good. If someone wants to be the next Charles Dickens, that's cool with me too.


----------



## Mindfire (Jun 26, 2012)

I take issue with #'s 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9. But the one that bugs me most is number 6. How on earth are you supposed to get around using the word "suddenly"? There's absolutely is no substitute for it. It's an invaluable transition word. How are you supposed to convey a "sudden" event without it? Of course, transitions are, I think, the weakest part of my writing. Some of you may not have this problem.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 26, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> I take issue with #'s 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9. But the one that bugs me most is number 6. How on earth are you supposed to get around using the word "suddenly"? There's absolutely is no substitute for it. It's an invaluable transition word. How are you supposed to convey a "sudden" event without it? Of course, transitions are, I think, the weakest part of my writing. Some of you may not have this problem.



I think the use of "suddenly" often makes the writing less sudden, odd as that may sound. I don't think I'd agree with "never" using it, but I think the point in general is that these kinds of words often have the opposite effect.

For example, you've got a scene with a guy holding a gun:

"Suddenly, he fired."

"He fired."

Which seems more "sudden" to you? I vote for the second one


----------



## Mindfire (Jun 26, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I think the use of "suddenly" often makes the writing less sudden, odd as that may sound. I don't think I'd agree with "never" using it, but I think the point in general is that these kinds of words often have the opposite effect.
> 
> For example, you've got a scene with a guy holding a gun:
> 
> ...



Well yes, but in that situation, you know he's holding the gun already, so it makes sense to just say "he fired". But if you don't know he has the gun, you have to describe him drawing it. Doing that without a transition word seems kind of impossible.

Or what about a sentence like this:

"Suddenly the light breeze seemed more chilling."


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 26, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Well yes, but in that situation, you know he's holding the gun already, so it makes sense to just say "he fired". But if you don't know he has the gun, you have to describe him drawing it. Doing that without a transition word seems kind of impossible.
> 
> Or what about a sentence like this:
> 
> "Suddenly the light breeze seemed more chilling."



Yeah, I think that sentence is just fine. I wouldn't take any writing rules or guidelines as gospel. I think as a rule they're meant more for beginners and are supposed to provide something that is more likely to lead to better writing.


----------



## JonSnow (Jun 26, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Well, ultimately you have to go with what you feel best as the author, and if that's a prologue, then so be it. But you could impart the same information to the reader through exposition in the story proper, or through dialogue between characters discussing the event from 15 years ago, and so on. If no character was around to witness it, and thus the event itself is completely unknown to the characters, then there is nothing wrong with leaving it unknown to the reader as well, and letting the reader learn about it when the characters do. But it is a choice of style, and you have to go with what speaks to you.



You actually gave me something to think about here... I could maybe tell the story in bits and pieces from 2nd-hand sources (one of them being a central character)... obviously I would lose quite a bit of detail, and some insight into the mind of one of the book's peripheral characters, but I might be able to keep the significance of the event itself without having to rely on a prologue. I'm not a lover of Prologues, either... perhaps this will give me an alternative. I'll have to think about it. Thanks for the reply.


----------



## Devor (Jun 26, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> For example, you've got a scene with a guy holding a gun:
> 
> "Suddenly, he fired."
> 
> ...



Taking a horrible use of the word as an example to make a "rule" about it doesn't actually make the rule.

"I'm going to kill you!" he said as he pulled the trigger.

He pulled the trigger.

Do you prefer it with the dialogue or without?  I prefer it without so then we should never use dialogue.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 26, 2012)

Devor said:


> Taking a horrible use of the word as an example to make a "rule" about it doesn't actually make the rule.
> 
> "I'm going to kill you!" he said as he pulled the trigger.
> 
> ...



I don't want to interrupt your stampede toward hyperbole, but you may have missed this part of that same post:



> I don't think I'd agree with "never" using it, but I think the point in general is that these kinds of words often have the opposite effect.



This should have clued you in on the fact that I was making a generalization, not stating a rule to be obeyed throughout the ages. What's up with the overwrought reactions?

The dialogue example is just silly, because the two versions serve two different purposes, whereas in my "suddenly" example the author wants to impart a sudden action in both cases.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 26, 2012)

I think the issue with the word suddenly, is that it is always telling and fails to show anything.

Personally though, I think we are all capable of making up our own rules as we go along and learn for ourselves, and they will be rules to fit our own style of writing. By looking at someone else's it's just a shortcut to having those rules behind us, a way to learn quicker what works and what doesn't. But, they're all just guidelines really.


----------



## Devor (Jun 26, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I think on the whole these guidelines are more likely to lead writers to producing a piece of good writing than not. That doesn't mean everyone should follow them or any other rules, but as general statements I think they're pretty good. If someone wants to be the next Charles Dickens, that's cool with me too.



_At best,_ it creates a style that a lot of modern readers are more used to and forgiving of.  On balance, it does not somehow make better writing.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jun 26, 2012)

Some people love very descriptive writing. When it's centered on setting I don't have much of an issue with it. The problem lies mainly with over descriptions, particularly regarding characters. 

When an author gets every detail of a character's appearance out it takes away from the communal relationship of author-reader. If an author is describing a bully and gives me every detail about his build, gait, number of freckles on his nose, and the stitching of his jacket it takes away from me as the reader. 

We all know bullies from our own lives. Limiting some of those details allows the reader to assimilate their own ideas from their real world experiences of what a bully is and looks like. This can help to make the world and characters more vivid and real for the reader.

I firmly believe that one of the reasons we often hear the phrase "the book was so much better than the movie" lies in how a reader supplies his or her own cast members to the author's story. With a movie, you're stuck with a director's choices.

Some won't like this but in regards to the word "suddenly" I think it's a lazy word. It does reduce urgency, in my opinion, every time. In the example about the breeze, "Suddenly the breeze felt cooler." it could be written.

"The breeze, warm only moments before, went cold. Sarah shivered with the abrupt change."

It's wordier sure but it's also more concrete and gives character experience.


----------



## JCFarnham (Jun 26, 2012)

Whether or not it "often" leads to more solid writing from beginners, I still object to guidelines relating to style. If you try you can make anything work. Practice with the myriad functions of your language - the style, the pacing, the feeling, the choice breaking of "rules".

To gives beginners advice like this list is detrimental from my point of view. It perpetuates people not trying. On the description side of things. Different amounts work for different scenes, characters, books, situations, genres, eras... The list goes on, but if every strong writer in the world has told you to be a minimalist and you take that for granted you may never explore the possibilities.

As such I will never tell a beginner to do something specific to MY style. First I would judge what they NEED to get out of the techniques in question or whether they are relevant. Context is the key.

Before accusations are leveled at me  I under stand that such things are difficult to impart on the net. The writer in question (havent heard of him don't remember his name) can't be expected to be able to judge his audiences needs like I would want to, so generalisations may seem adequate, but my opinion is that if I cant give advice "I think" is universal I simply won't.

I'm sure he's a great guy and a great writer. Still sometimes generalisations aren't best... Not in all situations.

Do stuff on the list.
Don't do stuff on the list.
You're call, but just explore it first.


----------



## Philip Overby (Jun 26, 2012)

I would say my writing tends to follow Leonard's "rules" more and more.  There is a ton of descriptive fantasy out there that is extremely awesome.  I've tried using a more minimalist style as of late, and I tend to like it for longer works.  We'll see how it turns out for me (if anyone wants to read any of it.)  

Leonard's rules tend to be the opposite of what most fantasy writers and aspiring fantasy writers like to do.  That doesn't mean the way they write is wrong.  Leonard's writing does tend to be very sparse, but it's sort of "no breath is wasted" type of writing.  I remember reading one of his books Pagan Babies which I read cover to cover.  His dialogue and character development is excellent.  You can see that's why he follows these rules.  He can do a lot with very little.  But some writers can do a lot with, well, a lot!

Steve Erikson is one of those writers who writes densely but still captivates me in a good way.


----------



## Robert Donnell (Jun 26, 2012)

Gradually mostly heck broke lose.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jun 26, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I can't say I disagree with any of these. If you're going for a more artistic style, along the lines of a Peake or Nabokov, these don't work of course. But in general I think these are good guidelines (there are no rules).



I'd say they're good guidelines if you want to write like Elmore Leonard.


----------



## Bear (Jun 26, 2012)

Rule 11. There are no rules.


----------



## SeverinR (Jun 27, 2012)

First rule of writing, there is no definate rule.
Change all the nevers to avoid most of the time or restrict it.

Any rule of writing will have exceptions some of the time. (See, even this rule isn't steadfast.)

Life doesn't always follow rules, so writers shouldn't either.
Know the rules, the flags, the pitfalls, if you occasionally bend or break a rule, no harm. Dance around them with grace and you will do well.


----------



## Helen (Jan 7, 2014)

I like #10.

As something to keep in mind during rewrites.


----------



## Xitra_Blud (Jan 8, 2014)

Some of these "rules" I can agree with, others, I do not. Truth is, it's all subjective (like any art). And looking at the arguments on this page, it further enforces my conclusion.  You're not going to please everyone. My biggest advice to anyone who wants to start writing, write what you enjoy reading.


----------



## DassaultMirage (Jan 11, 2014)

This book is good. I mean disregard the points for a bit, but the physical book is nice, fonts are regal-looking and big and riddled with awesome drawings. I have it, one of my coolest possessions


----------

