# Improving the craft, or undermining confidence?



## deilaitha (Aug 22, 2013)

I have been really struggling with something lately. 

I enjoy reading such things as Writer's Digest, blogs on writing, books on writing, etc.  Lately, I have been coming across a lot of negative motivation type articles, by which I mean the writer is encouraged to be better by first being told that they are no good. 

I thoroughly understand that writers need to guard against complacency, but I consider myself to be a 'good writer.'  Not fantastic, not the best, not even yet the best I can be, and that I have yet to reach my full potential.  So, in the interest of self-improvement, I read articles to help myself become aware of my shortcomings. 

They say that criticism, even the kind that hurts, makes you stronger.  Yet after reading a lot of opinion pieces I feel like my confidence has been totally undermined.  

"NO PURPLE PROSE!" So...even a little sprinkle here and there is bad? I agree it can't all be sappy but sometimes the poetic is in order, is it not? Isn't it a matter of opinion and taste? I enjoy reading a little more expressive, bordering on the flowery writing when distributed properly throughout a work. Why should I axe every single instance of it?

"KEEP IT TIGHT!" So...I can't occasionally or even frequently use the narrative styles of classical literature, but I absolutely must write like Hemingway? If I don't write using absolutely the fewest words possible, does that make me a crappy writer?

"NO ADVERBS! USE BETTER VERBS!" This one feels really personal for some reason.  I like to use adverbs. And sometimes, it seems more appropriate to the sentence to use "walk briskly" rather than "trot." Other times, "trot" seems better.  I feel like the implication is that if you use adverbs, you're a crappy writer. 

"IF YOU REALLY LIKE A SECTION OF YOUR WRITING, IT'S TERRIBLE.  KILL YOUR DARLINGS NOW." Am I not allowed to like my own work? Really? I am very critical of my work and my self so if I actually am satisfied with something and really like the way it turned out (whether that section is a re-work or just a first-shot), I am proud.  But I keep hearing that its a bad thing to like something you wrote. Like I say, I recognize that it can always be better, but is a little self confidence so bad?  

These are just a few things that really stick out to me.  I do find some parts of these useful and agree with them in part; however, I find it shocking that these are literary 'sins' and 'musts'.  Aren't they just the rules du jour? At one point, say Melville era, it was considered mandatory that novels should be really really really hard to read.  Now that's considered ridiculous. There are basic guidelines and really good advice available, but how crucial is it that I follow every single one to the 't'?   If people always follow the rules 100% how can you ever make breakthroughs? 

And after reading a lot of advice on writing, I am trying to edit my novel and just looking at the screen and crying, because of these rules of Damocles over my head. Of course I want to improve. Some of the advice is good.  

Yet all of this advice is killing my drive to excel.  Why even bother when you MUST do x y and z in order to be good? Why bother when you can't even be pleased with yourself?  My whole life has been a struggle against self-hatred and just as I am discovering the ways to accept myself, the love of my life, writing, seems to have this way of saying "you'll never be good enough." 

Why even keep writing? Where is the reward? Where is the drive to excel if you have to follow all of these rules? Great writers don't follow all the rules all the time; sure they employ them but they make exceptions. 
To modify a quote, well behaved writers rarely make history. 

But then there are the articles out there that say if you think think positively for even a moment you are ensuring that you won't see you flaws and then your novel is crap. 

Sigh.  I need some thoughts.  Right now I am so weighed down that I hate my writing, and it's seeping into my every day life again. Can't stand my mirror, can't stand anything that has to do with myself. 

I know this isn't a therapy site.  But how do you guys deal with all of the harsh advice without letting is shake your confidence?


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 22, 2013)

First, you have remember that treating those comments as absolutes is a load of bollocks.

"Purple Prose" is a descriptor people attach to any level of description they don't like. You can be as lean or as descriptive as you like, so long as you do it well. I guess that addresses the "keep it tight" comment as well. 

With adverbs, I think it is an awareness issue. If you're using adverb/verb combinations, look for stronger verbs. A lot of times, they will be there. If you look at it and decide that the adverb/verb combination is better, stick with it.

The idea that if you really like some segment of your own writing it must be bad is sheer nonsense, and I'd treat it as such. If you use that admonition to be on guard against emotional attachment versus objective analysis, then fine.

How to deal with harsh advice - ultimately, generic advice isn't worth much. It casts too broad a net. So I wouldn't let it impact you at all. Deal in advice specific to you and your work, from someone who understands what you're trying to accomplish, and how.


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 22, 2013)

The thing with these rules... is they have been purported to be rules... but they aren't rules at all. They are more like guidelines... pulled together from different writers and their perspectives on writing. They are not musts but things to look out for in regards to the _*overuse*_ of various aspects of writing.

Think of them more as tools... to be picked up and used when needed and when appropriate.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 22, 2013)

I agree with Steerpike that it important to understand the context of those kind of remarks.

In my experience, beginning writers typically have no idea how bad their writing is.  They produce some really horrendous stuff, post it somewhere, and expect people to say, "It's awesome!"

The fact is that writing well is hard.  It takes a long time to get to where you can produce something worth reading.

IMO, the advice you're reading is meant to forcefully inform apsiring authors that their writing isn't nearly as good as they think it is.

If you think your writing is awesome and it isn't, you're never going to improve.  If you understand your writing has flaws, you can work to fix those flaws.  I still have a long way to go as an author, but I feel I'm on the right (write?) track because I've had people forcefully point out my mistakes.



> Deal in advice specific to you and your work, from someone who understands what you're trying to accomplish, and how.



This is good advice.  The only way to know if you're really any good is to get feedback from a source that you trust.

I'd add this:

Know your goal.

If your goal is to produce works that resemble the great literary works of the 20th century, seek out advice on how to write the great literary work of the 20th century.  Reading a blog or book that's trying to tell you how to produce a modern bestseller isn't going to help you nearly as much.

Hope this helps!

Brian


----------



## PaulineMRoss (Aug 22, 2013)

Here's Guy Gavriel Kay's take on the whole business of writer's advice:

On Not Giving Advice | Brightweavings Journal

What you should always bear in mind is that *readers don't care* about this kind of thing. No reader ever tossed a book against the wall because there were too many adverbs (another writer might, but not a reader). If you kill off your main character, maybe. If the romance doesn't end with a happy ever after, definitely. If you promised zombies and didn't deliver, yes. But not because your character 'walked briskly' instead of trotted. Readers are in it for the story, not the grammar or style.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 22, 2013)

Probably won't surprise anyone to learn I think Kay is absolutely right.

And besides, I think he's one of the best working in the genre.


----------



## skip.knox (Aug 22, 2013)

FWIW, I'd say you are personalizing general advice. That is, you're reading statements made about writing in general and are assuming you must apply those statements to your own prose.

If you have written something, submitted it to an agent and/or to an editor, and *they* say you need to tone down your prose, or use fewer adverbs, then by all means take a hard look. Normally, they'll be quite specific and will give examples from your own writing.

But with these books and online essays, I read them only for the editing pass, never for the initial writing. That is, I'll write and I'll make my prose any color I like, thank you. At first draft, I'm just struggling to get the dratted story told. I'm overcoming obstacles, filling plot holes, reshaping characters and generally cursing the cat. Only later, when I think my story is in relatively good shape, do I remove the writer's hat (why's it always a hat? why not a shirt or gloves?), and try to approach the story the way I think an agent would. Only then do I haul out the guidelines and the rules, mainly because I'm pretty sure the agent is going to be playing in roughly the same ballpark. 

Even then, I only make one pass at that. Then I send my darling off to a critique circle or to beta readers because by then I'm so lost and twisted up the story needs fresher eyes than mine. Those other readers always find so many things that need revision, it's enough to keep me busy for many more hours. By the time all *that* is through, those advice columns are hardly more than distant echoes.

Or, to be more succinct: fuggedaboudit.  Just write.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 22, 2013)

deilaitha said:


> "NO PURPLE PROSE!" So...even a little sprinkle here and there is bad? I agree it can't all be sappy but sometimes the poetic is in order, is it not? Isn't it a matter of opinion and taste? I enjoy reading a little more expressive, bordering on the flowery writing when distributed properly throughout a work. Why should I axe every single instance of it?


Write with as much or little description as you like. Just be aware that modern audiences are geared towards leaner writing that gets to the point and does so with clarity. That's a generalization though. It's important to understand it as such. If you enjoy heavy imagery & metaphorical description then write in that fashion. You're not so unique a being that there aren't other readers in the world that are just like you. 



deilaitha said:


> "KEEP IT TIGHT!" So...I can't occasionally or even frequently use the narrative styles of classical literature, but I absolutely must write like Hemingway? If I don't write using absolutely the fewest words possible, does that make me a crappy writer?


Same as above. Write in the style you want. Understand though, you may find it a hard road when submitting to agents & publishers. If you're okay with that, or you're considering self-publishing, it really doesn't matter. It could even read fresh.



deilaitha said:


> "NO ADVERBS! USE BETTER VERBS!" This one feels really personal for some reason.  I like to use adverbs. And sometimes, it seems more appropriate to the sentence to use "walk briskly" rather than "trot." Other times, "trot" seems better.  I feel like the implication is that if you use adverbs, you're a crappy writer.


Anyone that's been a member of this forum, for any decent length of time, likely believes this is a peeve of mine. That's true to a point. However, it's also possible that my views on adverbs are a bit misunderstood. It's not that adverbs are bad necessarily, it's that over-saturation of adverbs tends to weaken the power of your writing. Often, replacing an adverb with more concrete descriptors, or just minimizing their frequency can make your writing pop & sizzle, not weakened by unnecessary modifiers. Secondly, it's a spot an author can look to if they want opportunities to enhance the frequency of showing in their writing and reduce the telling. My only personal adverbial absolute is my determination to never use adverbs to modify the verb "said".

In the end, if the writer feels the adverb is the best choice because it adds something other, more active/stronger words can't, then there's no issue at all. Like stated above, it's an awareness issue. Look at your adverb use and decide in each instance if that's the best way to describe. Make conscious choices.



PaulineMRoss said:


> What you should always bear in mind is that *readers don't care* about this kind of thing. No reader ever tossed a book against the wall because there were too many adverbs (another writer might, but not a reader). If you kill off your main character, maybe. If the romance doesn't end with a happy ever after, definitely. If you promised zombies and didn't deliver, yes. But not because your character 'walked briskly' instead of trotted. Readers are in it for the story, not the grammar or style.


I don't agree with this. Yes, writers may look at a story with a plethora of adverbs and think "too many adverbs" before tossing the book aside. Your average reader may put the same book in the trash because the story isn't immersive, it doesn't grab them and make them care. The reason could well be the same. Just because they can't put their finger on the "why", and verbalize it, doesn't mean it won't have a like effect. 



deilaitha said:


> "IF YOU REALLY LIKE A SECTION OF YOUR WRITING, IT'S TERRIBLE.  KILL YOUR DARLINGS NOW." Am I not allowed to like my own work? Really? I am very critical of my work and my self so if I actually am satisfied with something and really like the way it turned out (whether that section is a re-work or just a first-shot), I am proud.  But I keep hearing that its a bad thing to like something you wrote. Like I say, I recognize that it can always be better, but is a little self confidence so bad?


I don't have the same understanding of this concept. Rather, I take it to mean that a writer shouldn't force something into a story just because they love it. That could relate to a specific phrase, an idea, a POV character, whatever. I've definitely been in situations where I had to cut an entire POV, one that I really liked to write, because they no longer fit the story. I believe the concept is intended as a warning not to get too attached, at the expense of story.



deilaitha said:


> Aren't they just the rules du jour? ...how crucial is it that I follow every single one to the 't'?   If people always follow the rules 100% how can you ever make breakthroughs?


To some degree yes. However, some concepts have been around for quite a long time. Every writer should develop their own guidelines, those that work for the style they incorporate. Every writer should stick to their rules only so far as needed, making conscious decisions to break free of those rules as needed for effect. 
My advice on advice... Absorb what is useful, for you alone. Chuck the rest. Also, keep in mind, when any writer gives you advice, they're speaking from their individual experience. Bits of that advice is bound to be wrong for you. Never feel negative or defensive against that. It's their understanding and that's all.

The style and voice, that you create, should be unique to you. That takes a lot of writing to develop. Breakthroughs though, are rarely one off instances. Most often they are built off the work of those that came before us.



deilaitha said:


> My whole life has been a struggle against self-hatred and just as I am discovering the ways to accept myself, the love of my life, writing, seems to have this way of saying "you'll never be good enough."
> 
> Why even keep writing? Where is the reward? Where is the drive to excel if you have to follow all of these rules? Great writers don't follow all the rules all the time; sure they employ them but they make exceptions.
> To modify a quote, well behaved writers rarely make history.
> ...


There's only one thing we can control in our lives. That is our individual attitude. Either choose to let the negative impressions tear you down, or choose to look at advice as a challenge, an opportunity to experiment and expand. The latter is much more gratifying. It's also the only one of the two that helps you grow.

For what it's worth, I can tell by the clarity and expression, in your post here, that you are a competent writer. Instead of railing against advice like "No Adverbs!" and allowing negativity to creep in, try employing that technique on a snippet of your writing. Read them yourself. Let someone read them. If that method doesn't work for you....move forward. 

Never be afraid, or too complacent, to experiment.


----------



## Chessie (Aug 22, 2013)

Pauline, thanks for that helpful little article. I agree with him, writing and the creative process is hands down a deeply individual thing. Sure, we can all sit here and throw out suggestions on what helped us, but ultimately we have to craft that to match our own process and goals. 

To the OP: don't worry so much about it, do what feels right. You are already a writer, so have fun on your journey to being an established author. Learn from others but personalize it. If something feels off, respect that in yourself and move on to something that feels better. No one thing works for everyone except listening to ourselves.


----------



## Devor (Aug 22, 2013)

It's usually a matter of emphasis.  Most of the conversations on these topics usually end up with admissions like "sometimes it's okay" or "it's only purple if it doesn't work."  A few people put together rules on styles they like, mostly counter-rules to the way things were being written at the time, and now we hear those a lot.

Does following those rules improve the skills of the average amateur writer?  Maybe, I've really no idea.  My own impression is that it's like arguing about the extras on your car without looking at the engine.  But to each their own.

Certainly don't impose rules on yourself if they feel unnatural.  Figure out your own voice, and develop techniques to your writing which help that voice come through.


----------



## Daichungak (Aug 22, 2013)

Keep in mind that opinions are like a particular orifice, in both frequency and odor.

I have been dealing with the same feelings and doubts lately.  I have a few real life friends who love reading and are always eager to give me feedback.  My relationship with these people goes much deeper than just reading, writing or any shared interest in fantasy.  If I am feeling really down about my work I will send them my latest revision and bask in the glow of their praise until my spirits are buoyed.  Being sufficiently recharged I then take my grain of salt, put on my thick skin, and continue learning.


----------



## risu (Aug 22, 2013)

Many of the same thoughts have crossed my mind over the past week. I've mentally stewed over the question: "What determines good writing?" Marketability? Enjoyment? Syntax? What makes me smile might not do a darn thing for someone else. Does that mean it's bad? And if someone does say it's poor writing, does that make my tastes wrong? Who gets to be the judge?

I suppose it goes back to writing what you want to read.


----------



## The Dark One (Aug 23, 2013)

Note to OP...'rules of Damocles'...

That was a bit purple. I'd cut that.


----------



## The Dark One (Aug 23, 2013)

Seriously, as others have said, take what is useful to you from the great ocean of advice and ignore the rest. Why take on board something you can't use?

Having said that, I would also say that leanness and clarity - not just of expression, but also of structure - are likely to be more successful than density and prolixity. Which is a real shame because I like 'dense and prolix'.

Maybe you are the sort of writer who will one day make a breakthrough and inspire a whole new generation of readers AND writers with your purple, complex, adverb-infested stories.

Any style is good if done well.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 23, 2013)

I was watching some of Brandon Sanderson's lectures, and I like the point he made about it. He was talking about making writing more concrete, tightening in places, being efficient with word usage, and other 'rules' for writing. He repeatedly prefaced his points with "if you want to do it," and then went on to give his advice about writing.

His greater point was that for all of these rules, you first have to decide whether that's what you want to do. If you don't want to do it, that's fine. If you do, he was going to tell you how. He mentioned that one difference between his own work and Patrick Rothfuss' work is that Rothfuss will often write for the prose itself, to make the writing beautiful so that it becomes as important as what is being said. He noted that this is a perfectly valid approach, it's just not the one he uses.

That, in my view, is how the "rules" should always be presented to people in discussion. He did a really nice job of making sure people understood that you don't have to write that way, and that in fact you can write something great with long description that draws attention to itself, or a variety of others styles, and then he proceeded to tell the class how he approaches it personally.

It's all about finding your style, and what you're good at, or what you have passion for, and sticking with it.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 23, 2013)

risu said:


> Many of the same thoughts have crossed my mind over the past week. I've mentally stewed over the question: "What determines good writing?" Marketability? Enjoyment? Syntax? What makes me smile might not do a darn thing for someone else. Does that mean it's bad? And if someone does say it's poor writing, does that make my tastes wrong? Who gets to be the judge?
> 
> I suppose it goes back to writing what you want to read.



I gave this a lot of thought last night.  Here are the things I came up with:

1. The worst person to judge the quality of the writing is the writer.  For one thing, there's an inherent bias.  Only one person in the world would make the exact choices in a story that you favor - you.  Only one person in the world will love every choice you make - you.  There's also a problem with reading your writing as a reader.  It's extremely difficult to do unless you gain a lot of distance.

2. The best person to judge the quality of the writing is the author's intended audience.

3. The best way I can figure what makes good writing is to determine if it meets its goal.  If you wish to entertain your audience, then your writing is good if you entertained your audience.  Whether your goal is to inform or to promote a cause or whatever, the measure of goodness if it achieves that purpose with your target audience.

4. If you're looking for a more universal measure of what makes writing good, I'd say, at a fundamental level, your writing is good if it manages to not bore your audience.

Hope that helps!

Brian


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 23, 2013)

> What you should always bear in mind is that *readers don't care* about this kind of thing.



In a way, this viewpoint seems to trvialize what we do as writers.

Writing well takes an awful lot of work.  I'm of the belief that a positive reaction to a story is the result of the author having used all his knowledge and skill and hard work to create that reaction.

Granted, some issues are more important than others, which I think is what the poster is trying to say.  A story without tension is much more likely to be unreadable than a story with too many adverbs.

Crafting a story that pulls in the readers, grabs their attention, and doesn't let go simply is not an easy thing to accomplish.  I'm not sure that many people on this board have been able to accomplish fully such a goal.  I know I haven't.

As I strive to achieve such a goal, it's not easy to know what magical combination of technique and story will get me to it.  If I would have come up with an action that connects with the reader on an emotional level instead of taking the shortcut of throwing in an adverb, would that have immersed my reader more fully in the story?


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 23, 2013)

When it comes to whether readers care, I look at it in two ways.

It is true, readers don't give a damn about this stuff. There are plenty of very successful books with huge followings that do all kinds of things writers are told not to do - adverb usage, writing that isn't as tight as it could be, and so on. Readers don't care, because the writing works for them, and in the end that's the only thing that matters: does it work.

On the other hand, if you do these things poorly, or misuse them in ways that new writers tend to, so that the writing doesn't work, readers will care. They might not know or care why it doesn't work, but they'll care that it doesn't and move on to something else.

You can approach your writing in whatever way you see fit, and you can certainly make writing work even if you completely disregard all the rules that are commonly thrown around. If that's what you want to do, there is nothing at all wrong with it. But to make it work, I think you have to understand the issues, know why people cite the rules and therefore why it is you've decided to depart from them, rather than stumbling along and making the writing bad through lack of skill or knowledge.


----------



## PaulineMRoss (Aug 23, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> > What you should always bear in mind is that *readers don't care* about this kind of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> In a way, this viewpoint seems to trvialize what we do as writers.



Sorry. That was clumsily worded, and comes across as insulting which was certainly not my intention. 

I was only trying to say that readers are a lot more tolerant of such details than writers, and don't even notice most of them.



> If I would have come up with an action that connects with the reader on an emotional level instead of taking the shortcut of throwing in an adverb, would that have immersed my reader more fully in the story?



That depends. Sometimes the action construction is clunkier than a simple adverb.

It's not easy to find the right balance in all this. I read a lot of self-published works, many of them debuts, and while some of them have clearly never read any writer's advice in their lives, others have gone too far the other way, and I can see where they struggled to find the right 'action' phraseology, so the language becomes stilted.

The books that work best for me are those where: a) I always understand what's going on; and b) I want to know what's going to happen; and c) the characters behave believably; and d) the writing flows, without clunkiness. To write books like that, I think, requires a writer to understand the rules and structure, certainly, but also to step back and see the whole picture. In the end, it's the story that matters not how many adverbs are used.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 23, 2013)

> The books that work best for me are those where: a) I always understand what's going on; and b) I want to know what's going to happen; and c) the characters behave believably; and d) the writing flows, without clunkiness. To write books like that, I think, requires a writer to understand the rules and structure, certainly, but also to step back and see the whole picture. In the end, it's the story that matters not how many adverbs are used.



I don't disagree with any of this.  All good objectives!

My main point was that it's a lot harder to achieve those objectives than many readers realize, and I'm in full agreement that stepping back and seeing the story is of critical importance.  I don't think that issue gets discussed much because there aren't easy "rules" for doing it like there are with techniques.  Each story is unique and carries its own challenges when talking about the whole picture.  Technique issues, on the other hand, share some universal qualities that we can discuss endlessly.



> Sometimes the action construction is clunkier than a simple adverb.



In that case, it's not the right action!

Writers are faced with two extremely difficult challenges:

1. Figure out what to convey.
2. Figure out how to convey it.

Each choice is fraught with danger.


----------



## Chessie (Aug 23, 2013)

I love the way Brandon Sanderson does his lectures and gives his advice. I wouldn't even call it advice. He's so general and open, I dig his process big time.

That said, last night I was playing with my kindle looking for books to download. I like how Amazon lets you preview the story before buying. I downloaded a couple books, one of which had me enthralled through the first 2 chapters until I finally had to put it down to go to bed. It had adverbs, was, and other 'rule breakers' in it. It also had some info dump in bits and pieces here and there. Anyway, I'm excited to continue reading it. Why? Because the story is fascinating. The author has short descriptions and really paces well with what seems to be happening in the story. 

Point being, make the story matter the most out of anything. Its really the main goal when we write, to get that story out. Everything else in your writing will fall into place as you discover what works for you.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin (Aug 23, 2013)

My experience has been that, without exception, the experienced writers offering worthwhile advice add in something along the lines of "if you like", "if you want", "all writers are different, this is my way". Something like that.

Brandon does it. DWS does it when he talks about writing, too. He's VERY emphatic about his own process - but he always says "all writers are different", and reiterates that any process that is working is not a bad one.

Really, though - I find WD articles to be pretty much the lowest common denominator of writing advice. At best, their essays are usually either dated or raw novice stuff. At worst, their articles are actually harmful and detrimental to the writer trying to adhere to their advice blindly.

On some level, take advice from whence it comes. I feel good listening to advice from Brandon Sanderson - and the whole "Writing Excuses" podcast cast, honestly - because they are where I would like to be in terms of skill. And they're passing along advice that passes the sanity check.  Dean Wesley Smith, the same. Stephen King's "On Writing" is excellent, although there are some places where my own opinion and method differ from what he wrote.

I avoid WD entirely at this point. I also try not to listen to anything written about fiction writing by novice writers - that is, folks without some combination of a dozen or so novels or a few dozen shorts to their credit. Someone who wrote two novels and is trying to teach writing probably has nothing new to teach me or really anyone else. They're simply regurgitating the bad advice they were given.

Edit to add: By "passing the sanity check", I more or less mean the "Hemingway check". He was famous for outright lying to novice writers, making up all sorts of crazy stuff that they, in their earnest (chuckle) desire to emulate him would follow. He was not alone.   Lots of writers enjoy making up stuff to tell newer writers.


----------



## The Dark One (Aug 23, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Writers are faced with two extremely difficult challenges:
> 
> 1. Figure out what to convey.
> 2. Figure out how to convey it.
> ...



Very true. My least successful book (depending on how you gauge success) was (among other things) a parody of the search for meaning. It was therefore very confusing, and deliberately so, but for those readers who hung on there was a massive pay off at the end. 

I think that on any level you could name it was well written, but it set the reader a mighty challenge and I wasn't famous enough to get away with it. I suspect an established writer may have been hailed as ground-breaking and bravely experimental. 

The nice thing is that some readers got it - there were a couple of superb reviews on goodreads by some deeply perspicacious people who managed to stay with the story and appreciated what I was trying to do. My great hope is that when my new book comes out (much less challenging with a far more lineal style) people may enjoy it enough to go looking for my backlist AND TRUST THAT I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING!!!!


----------



## Guy (Aug 23, 2013)

deilaitha said:


> "NO PURPLE PROSE!" So...even a little sprinkle here and there is bad? I agree it can't all be sappy but sometimes the poetic is in order, is it not? Isn't it a matter of opinion and taste? I enjoy reading a little more expressive, bordering on the flowery writing when distributed properly throughout a work. Why should I axe every single instance of it?
> 
> 
> "KEEP IT TIGHT!" So...I can't occasionally or even frequently use the narrative styles of classical literature, but I absolutely must write like Hemingway? If I don't write using absolutely the fewest words possible, does that make me a crappy writer?


I like the way P.D. James put it: "Increase your word power. Words are the raw material of our craft. The greater your vocabulary the more effective your writing. We who write in English are fortunate to have the richest and most versatile language in the world. Respect it."

If you do away with vivid description and keep your sentences as simple as possible, you'll end up with some god-awful dull writing. A novel would be no different from a shopping list, and writing one would require about as much talent. Words are to the writer what notes are to a composer or pigments to an artist. Taking this advice would result in a book that's like a one note song or a picture that's a single shade of green. I'm a fan of H.P. Lovecraft and I love some of the complex sentences he wrote. Mind you, he went overboard from time to time, but crafting the sentences he did requires a little thing called talent. Not just anybody can do it. If they could, there wouldn't be any point in bothering with it. This is particularly problematic for the fantasy genre. I'm creating an entire world, for crying out loud. There's no way I can create a vivid, authentic world populated with vivid, authentic characters and be succinct. It's going to require some words and pages. Sorry, but there's no way around that.

When I read a novel - particularly a fantasy novel - I don't want a sound bite or a blurb. I want to be immersed in a new world. I want to experience it. It's like a vacation - I don't want it to end soon, and when it does end I want to feel a slight loss and be anxious for the next story to come out. Think about your favorite movie. Would it be as good if it was only ten minutes long? If someone is reading for recreation, why do they want it to end quickly? The whole idea is absurd.


> "NO ADVERBS! USE BETTER VERBS!" This one feels really personal for some reason.  I like to use adverbs. And sometimes, it seems more appropriate to the sentence to use "walk briskly" rather than "trot." Other times, "trot" seems better.  I feel like the implication is that if you use adverbs, you're a crappy writer.


This never made sense, either. Adverbs are a normal facet of the English language. They serve a purpose. You don't want to over use them, but you don't want over use anything. Why they single out adverbs is beyond me.

On a side note, have you noticed that to obey this rule leads to violating the first two? If I can't use an adverb, I'll have to use several words to describe something when I could've used one, thus getting away from "keeping it tight" and opening the door for "purple prose."


> "IF YOU REALLY LIKE A SECTION OF YOUR WRITING, IT'S TERRIBLE.  KILL YOUR DARLINGS NOW." Am I not allowed to like my own work? Really? I am very critical of my work and my self so if I actually am satisfied with something and really like the way it turned out (whether that section is a re-work or just a first-shot), I am proud.  But I keep hearing that its a bad thing to like something you wrote. Like I say, I recognize that it can always be better, but is a little self confidence so bad?


This one is just stupid.


> These are just a few things that really stick out to me.  I do find some parts of these useful and agree with them in part; however, I find it shocking that these are literary 'sins' and 'musts'.  Aren't they just the rules du jour? At one point, say Melville era, it was considered mandatory that novels should be really really really hard to read.  Now that's considered ridiculous. There are basic guidelines and really good advice available, but how crucial is it that I follow every single one to the 't'?   If people always follow the rules 100% how can you ever make breakthroughs?


Exactly. As Hector Barbossa put it, these rules are "more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules."


> And after reading a lot of advice on writing, I am trying to edit my novel and just looking at the screen and crying, because of these rules of Damocles over my head. Of course I want to improve. Some of the advice is good.
> 
> Yet all of this advice is killing my drive to excel.  Why even bother when you MUST do x y and z in order to be good? Why bother when you can't even be pleased with yourself?  My whole life has been a struggle against self-hatred and just as I am discovering the ways to accept myself, the love of my life, writing, seems to have this way of saying "you'll never be good enough."
> 
> ...


There's absolutely no point to creative writing if you don't enjoy it. Trying to get good at it by scrupulously following rules is like trying to become a good artist through paint by numbers. I have to say one rule I've seen that absolutely infuriates me is the one that says not to use big words; a reader shouldn't need a dictionary to read your book. Seriously? Gods forbid the reader should learn a new word! Reading is how I built and enriched my vocabulary. If you find the thought of learning a new word or two so repugnant, you've got no business picking up a book. The only real reason for knowing the so-called rules is so you can break them properly. 

"The main rule of writing is that if you do it with enough assurance and confidence, you're allowed to do whatever you like. (That may be a rule for life as well as for writing. But it's definitely true for writing.) So write your story as it needs to be written. Write it honestly, and tell it as best you can. I'm not sure that there are any other rules. Not ones that matter." - Neil Gaiman

"“Write the kind of story you would like to read. People will give you all sorts of advice about writing, but if you are not writing something you like, no one else will like it either.” 
― Meg Cabot

Write for yourself, not for the market or trends or any of that other crap. You have a story to tell and only you can tell it. This doesn't mean you ignore criticism. Criticism isn't fun, but it is necessary. As for what criticisms to take, if several people have the same criticism of your writing, there's probably something to it. But I've submitted writing for criticism from four or five people and gotten four or five completely different criticisms. Sometimes they tell me something useful, something I never noticed in my writing and probably never would have. Other times I have no idea what they're talking about. In the end, all you can do is use your own judgement. You're not stupid.

The opinions of publishers and agents is surprisingly limited. I say limited, but I find their opinions of what is and is not good writing all but useless. You've probably done this already, but do a search for famous authors who were rejected and the publishers who missed out on having the next best thing. The tales are legion. Three of my favorites:

One editor told F. Scott Fitzgerald he'd have a pretty good story if he'd "just get rid of the Gatsby character." Yeah, get rid of your titular character. Great advice.

One told Tony Hillerman, a man who wrote crime stories featuring a Native American detective on a reservation police department, to "forget all that Indian stuff." Yep, get rid of the thing that distinguishes your work from all the others. Brilliant!

One editor told Rudyard Kipling he had a poor grasp of the English language.

And for further evidence, just go to a bookstore and look at all the crap publishers do find acceptable. This seems to be endemic in creative or artistic fields - movies (what kind of creative black hole are you in when you've run out of video games and cancelled T.V. shows to make movies from?), music (what twisted soul thought infusing rap with country was a good idea? Whoever it was is probably related to the guy who invented fruit flavored beer and decaf Colombian coffee.), and television (if multiple shows about the Kardashians isn't proof of a fallen civilization, I don't know what is.) are all rife with examples of producers, directors and others of influence who found absolute, undiluted crap to be acceptable. The publishing world is no different. So when a publisher, editor or agent says something is or is not good writing, the fact that he's in the publishing biz doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about. He might know what sells and what doesn't, but even then they seem to be wrong surprisingly often. You know what another rule is? Read the published authors and see how they did it. The first thing you might notice is how often - and blatantly - published authors break these alleged rules. Write the type of story you enjoy reading. If you like it, odds are others will, too. Some of what you write will be great, some of it will be crap, and some of it will be mediocre. Polish it and sharpen it. And enjoy it.


----------



## wordwalker (Aug 23, 2013)

Agree on all counts.

But let me say, the rule of "these aren't full rules" even justifies



deilaitha said:


> "IF YOU REALLY LIKE A SECTION OF YOUR WRITING, IT'S TERRIBLE.  KILL YOUR DARLINGS NOW." Am I not allowed to like my own work? Really?



I've been quoting this one for years, with the caveat "The wildest advice of all-- but with a kernel of sanity hidden in it."

Of course good doesn't equal bad. What the people who originally said "kill your darlings" meant, before it got bastardized, is that a writer should be able to step back from his more personal reactions and see how something works for the story. Loving a bit of writing is mostly a good sign, but just sometimes it can be a sign you're pushing only your own buttons, or you're more impressed with what a risk you took than how well you pulled it off. Or sometimes a phrase draws attention to _itself_ more than it serves the story; it might still be worth it, or if you're trying to be Patrick Rothfuss, a flashy line isn't a distraction because everything else will be flashy too.

Trust your instincts-- the first time. When you edit, learn to spot the times you may have followed the wrong ones.

Then again, sometimes writers leave in the more selfish twists, and readers love them for putting more of themselves into the tale. Tricky.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Aug 23, 2013)

The key to "Rules" is knowing what they are and having a good grasp of how they apply.  Then choosing very carefully when and where to break them.  I often write those same comments to people when I critique, but only because they are distracting from the enjoyment of the piece.  I've read plenty of good writers who break the rules, and consider myself a bit of a rulebreaker.  But the difference is in how it affects enjoyment.  The advice is meant to draw writers' attention to those things as potentially significant pitfalls.  

I don't think striking all adverbs form a manuscript will ever turn a good writer into a great one.  Plain and simple, they have more problems than adverb use, right?  It's just that new writers tend to use a lot of adverbs.  Indiscriminately.  Like they're in love with them...

But I love adverbs too.  So I use them.  Was it adverb use that got my novel shot down by an agent?  No.  It was terrible editing.  Gotta admit your own weaknesses.  And for people without a lot of practical experience, it's often difficult to know what your weaknesses are.  Too many people expect the world to be wowed when they first show their work.  And when they're not, they go in search of the "why".  Often, advice like that is a place to start.  Imagine, if you will, you're just getting your driver's license, and I pull up in a school bus and give you a five minute crash course on how to parallel park it.  Will you try or give up and go home?  That's what it would be like to talk about the really deep issues to new writers.  Bloggers have a short segment in which to give SOME advice, so they start with things that are easy.  Luckily, there's way better advice to be found on this forum and from the people here  

Best wishes.


----------



## The Dark One (Aug 24, 2013)

My take on kill your darlings is this: sometimes you come up with something that strikes you as pretty good, but either it doesn't quite sit with everything else, or something else changes and it suddenly sticks out as no longer relevant, but you can't quite bring yourself to cut it out because you like the way it's worded.

It's a darling. Kill it.

Another example is when a character comes up with a piece of dialogue which you just love...but it's not really the sort of thing that character would realistically say. My novel Mr Cleansheets was about the adventures of a loveable larrikin who was intelligent but uneducated. At one point he comes out with a quip which was definitely not the product of an uneducated brain - more the sort of thing a graduate of fine arts might say at a gallery opening while clutching a pinot noir. It was so deft and perfect that I couldn't help but leave it in, even though I knew it was wrong. And people have commented on it so it really does stick out like a dog's proverbial equipment. 

It was a darling. I should have killed it.

No matter how good, if it departs from the spine of the story or renders a character 'out of character', it is a darling.

Kill it.


----------



## Guy (Aug 24, 2013)

One rule I apply is to ask myself a couple of questions:

1. What purpose does this piece of writing serve? The answer has to be very, very (perhaps maddeningly) specific. Once that is answered... 

2. Does it work? Be brutally honest with yourself when answering this one.


----------



## deilaitha (Aug 24, 2013)

Wow.  I almost cried reading everyone's responses.  You have all made so many eloquent, intellectual, and reassuring comments.  I cannot thank you all enough.  I really needed this boost. I didn't have the opportunity to check ms since I last posted and I am floored by all the helpful, kind, caring, and funny (I'm looking at you, The Dark One) replies. 

I love you guys. MS is the best thing that has happened to me as a writer. Thank you all so much.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 24, 2013)

deilaitha said:


> Wow.  I almost cried reading everyone's responses.  You have all made so many eloquent, intellectual, and reassuring comments.  I cannot thank you all enough.  I really needed this boost. I didn't have the opportunity to check ms since I last posted and I am floored by all the helpful, kind, caring, and funny (I'm looking at you, The Dark One) replies.
> 
> I love you guys. MS is the best thing that has happened to me as a writer. Thank you all so much.



That's what MS is all about. While we may not always agree with one another, the community is supportive & strives to help.

We're happy to have you with us.....


----------



## Caged Maiden (Aug 24, 2013)

It's the best thing that happened to me as a writer, too.  The people I've met here have undeniably inspired me.  I made lifelong friends and increased my quality so much because of crit partners who give me the straight truth, no holds barred.  I can't thank this community enough, so instead of personally telling everyone how much they've influenced my life, I try to pass that good will on to others.  Whenever I see a new writer who needs help, asks for an honest crit, or needs a boost... I try to be there, like people were there for me.  I think the benefits of this sort of community are evidenced in the results.  At least for me, that's a pretty significant testament to the quality of people we have here.  

I feel stupid.  I thought "Kill your darlings" refered to the ability to kill your main character if the story called for it.  HA!  I'd never heard that phrase before.  Good thing I can do both... kill my character even if I don't want to because I love them... and trim the crap out of a manuscript.


----------



## The Dark One (Aug 24, 2013)

A small pedantic point...it's not trimming the crap. It's trimming the really good writing that probably doesn't belong in the story.


----------



## wordwalker (Aug 24, 2013)

The Dark One said:


> A small pedantic point...it's not trimming the crap. It's trimming the really good writing that probably doesn't belong in the story.



Exactly. Like the definition of a weed: any plant at all that isn't where you want it.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 29, 2013)

It seemed that this discussion really focused on the benefit of rules.  I think there's really a larger issue.  Going back to the OP:



> I enjoy reading such things as Writer's Digest, blogs on writing, books on writing, etc. Lately, I have been coming across a lot of negative motivation type articles, by which I mean the writer is encouraged to be better by first being told that they are no good.
> 
> I thoroughly understand that writers need to guard against complacency, but I consider myself to be a 'good writer.' Not fantastic, not the best, not even yet the best I can be, and that I have yet to reach my full potential. So, in the interest of self-improvement, I read articles to help myself become aware of my shortcomings.
> 
> They say that criticism, even the kind that hurts, makes you stronger. Yet after reading a lot of opinion pieces I feel like my confidence has been totally undermined.



I really get this.  On one level, all I want, and I feel this is a trait shared by most of us, is to find people who like my writing.  

Is that so hard?

The process of pouring everything I have into something and then having it torn apart isn't pleasant.

The problem is that, while we all have the right to put anything out there that we want, none of us have a right to be read.  To be read, you only have two options:

1. Figure out who your audience is, figure out what they want, and give it to them.
2. Write the best you freaking can and put it out there in the hopes the readers will find you.

If you fall into category one, good for you.  I, unfortunately, am in the second.

There are a lot of people writing in the world.  Creating something that stands out from the pack is extremely difficult.  You have to create something "special."

If I knew how to create something "special," I'd a) be doing it myself and b) tell you how to do it (I'm just generous that way  ).

Until I figure it out, all I can do is to keep improving (and keep debating endlessly with Steerpike on the best way to create "special"  ).  I believe the best way to continue on that path is to learn from every source imaginable, whether it be Writer's Digest, a blog, this forum, or, especially, specific feedback on my work from critique groups, beta readers, my editor, etc.

While I understand that such can shake your confidence, I don't don't know how you can improve unless you admit that you need improvement.

Of course, in the end, the only person you absolutely have to please is yourself - if all you're looking for is to create writing that you like.  

(If you're trying to get me to like your writing, good luck.  At best, I'd give the book I've spent 2 and a half years writing 4 stars, and that's only if I were feeling particularly generous.)


----------



## The Dark One (Aug 30, 2013)

On the subject of 'creating special'...

In my (some would say _not so_) humble opinion, if you want to create special, you have to BE special.

Are you?

This comes back to my recent What makes you different? What makes you good? thread. Same principle. Special people (however defined) have a different way of construing the world and that gives them a different slant on the art of storytelling. Doesn't mean it's a good slant, and doesn't mean it will sell...but it _will_ be different from that vast ocean of material painstakingly put together by all of those who've learned every writing craft and literary trick under the sun, but don't have that spark of originality to give their work life.

Examine your life. Are you special? Are you doing special things and thinking special thoughts?

How would you know?

One of the several things I love about George Orwell is that he reinvented himself as special in order to be taken seriously. Life in 1920s Europe was a drab and difficult affair for those without money, yet Orwell did something utterly unthinkable for those times. He threw in his secure middle class livelihood and became a hobo...deliberately...in order to experience in a visceral sense the underside of life, and kept it up for (I think) a couple of years before returning to the middle class supported (mainly) by his writing.

Obviously, the spark of adventure must already have been there, but that's an incredible step to take.

Made him special though, and look at the results.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 30, 2013)

> On the subject of 'creating special'...
> 
> In my (some would say not so) humble opinion, if you want to create special, you have to BE special.
> 
> Are you?



I think it's fun for us to speculate on what it takes to create "special" and how to create it.  I also think it's a discussion fraught with difficulties.

1. I don't think any of us really know or we'd be doing it.
2. I seriously doubt that I would consider the same books "special" as I would.
3. Even if we could agree on what books are defined as "special," I doubt we could agree on the reasons that make them so or how those results were achieved.

For a book to be "special" for me, it doesn't have to look at the world in a new way.  It simply has to engage me and make me feel.  It has to stick with me after I put it down.

I have no doubt that your definition differs from mine, however, and your definition is just as valid for you as mine is for me.


----------



## wordwalker (Aug 30, 2013)

_(Deletes rant about "special" being the worst told-not-shown word for a writer to use, ever.)_

Seems to me The Dark One put it backwards: if someone is able to create something that's unique, important, or powerful, that's the only proof that matters that they *are* that good. Besides, if "specialness" needed any additional proofs, I'd say the process of hammering out work like that --and everything that may need to get it done-- is trial enough.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 30, 2013)

> (Deletes rant about "special" being the worst told-not-shown word for a writer to use, ever.)



I don't have a problem with the use of the word as long as everyone understands that the definition varies widely according to personal tastes.  There is no "special" that fits everyone.  I think it is useful as a term that means something like, "The quality or combination of qualities that makes a work of fiction rank among my favorites."


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 30, 2013)

I tend to agree with The Dark One, though as BWFoster says, it differs from person to person. For me, the author not only has to give me characters and a story I am interested in, but tell the story in a unique way that isn't just interchangeable with every other aspiring writer out there. That's the case before I'll consider an author "special" and an automatic buy when their next work comes out. I'll read the other type as well, but I don't have any vested interest in them and if they quit putting out work it wouldn't bother me.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 30, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I tend to agree with The Dark One, though as BWFoster says, it differs from person to person. For me, the author not only has to give me characters and a story I am interested in, but tell the story in a unique way that isn't just interchangeable with every other aspiring writer out there. That's the case before I'll consider an author "special" and an automatic buy when their next work comes out. I'll read the other type as well, but I don't have any vested interest in them and if they quit putting out work it wouldn't bother me.



Though I would guess we would differ on the specifics a great deal, I'm not sure we're far apart in our views in general.  To me the big thing isn't a unique telling of the story as much as the fact that it creates a reaction.  Most fantasy, I read and forget.  Some books, however, the special ones, stay with me.

I would guess that you feel much the same; it's just a matter of trying to define what creates that reaction.


----------



## PaulineMRoss (Aug 30, 2013)

To my mind, being 'special' is more about confidence. The fantasy I've read that stood out was not so much about having a unique and clever idea, (I've read stuff with brilliant ideas that was very poorly executed) it was more about having the confidence to take that idea and let it go wherever it wants to go, without worrying about whether people will like it or whether it will be marketable or whether it will be controversial or whether it's politically correct.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 30, 2013)

I think that's right, Pauline. And I think authors who take that approach are more likely to come across as distinctive. 

BWFoster - I have more or less the same reaction. In my experience, the ones that create an impression and stick with me are the ones where the author has a distinctive voice and style that lingers long after I've put the book down. People are all going to have their own feelings on what makes a book memorable of course.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 30, 2013)

I've always thought one of the qualities that make any work of fiction special, depends on the author writing with unabashed honesty.

What I mean by honesty is having the bravery to write exactly what should be written, what the characters would really do, without concern for how the outside world would view those actions (and perhaps attribute them to the author). For example, Nabokov's "Lolita".

Though it sounds simple, it's not the easiest thing to do. Further, I think it takes a certain maturity, both within the craft and life itself, to write that way. Writing with honesty is always more interesting.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 30, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> What I mean by honesty is having the bravery to write exactly what should be written, what the characters would really do, without concern for how the outside world would view those actions (and perhaps attribute them to the author). For example, Nabokov's "Lolita".



Yes, I agree with this. And _Lolita_ is also a great example of the writer having a distinctive style and use of language. It's a brilliant book.


----------



## The Dark One (Aug 30, 2013)

PaulineMRoss said:


> To my mind, being 'special' is more about confidence. The fantasy I've read that stood out was not so much about having a unique and clever idea, (I've read stuff with brilliant ideas that was very poorly executed) it was more about having the confidence to take that idea and let it go wherever it wants to go, without worrying about whether people will like it or whether it will be marketable or whether it will be controversial or whether it's politically correct.



When I talk about the spark of originality, I'm not talking about just a unique and clever idea (although that might be part of it). I'm talking about an original flavour that shines through the work in a way that makes us think:

- I love being in this place 
- I love hearing this voice
- this story is familiar, yet completely different to everything else I've ever read
- the plot is really strong. I keep thinking I know where it's going but it keeps surprising me
- nobody else could do it like this
- I am really starting to panic as the pages dwindle in my right hand
- I will always enjoy reading this book. It doesn't matter that I know what's coming, I just love being in this world.

I'd call myself a writer if I could achieve that sort of book.


----------



## Chessie (Aug 30, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Yes, I agree with this. And _Lolita_ is also a great example of the writer having a distinctive style and use of language. It's a brilliant book.



I LOVE that book. What a fantastic story, that one is.

And to add on to T. Allen's post (like I meant to before I hit send accidentally), I was disappointed in a certain end to a certain fantasy novel I recently read that could have been executed much stronger, but for whatever reason, the story kept sinking until the very end despite a powerful start.

I don't get that. It really seemed like he was holding back, and the things that ended up happening were ridiculous and void of emotions, it all just seemed like Disney's fairyland and I was suddenly reading a kid's book. For sure, we must write what's in our hearts and stay true to that. If it feels forced to us, it will come across as forced to our readers.


----------

