# Voice? How and how much?



## Svrtnsse (Nov 5, 2013)

_This turned into more of a rant than an actual question. 
TL;DR - How do you balance voice and tight prose?_

Lately (last few days) I've been pondering the idea of narrative voice a bit. It's an idea I like, that what I'm writing reads differently than to what someone else is writing, even if we're writing the same scene.

At first I figured this was something subconscious that happened automatically when you wrote, based on your personality, but now I'm not so sure. I believe it's something that you can have an impact on if you pay attention and set your mind to it.

My issue at the moment is that the more active and efficient your prose is, the less room there is for narrative voice. I'm not saying there's no room for it, but I think that with tighter writing there's less space for the little fluff that gives your language its character. You can probably still have a distinctive voice even with extremely tight writing, but I believe it's probably more difficult. That said, when it does work, it probably works really well.

---

What spawned this post is the thread about words to cut out of your writing. It eventually caused me to go through my own stories and check where I'd used those words. I'd used most of them, and in most of the cases where I found them I could probably have cut them out and achieved an effect of the same or similar kind.
In some cases I felt the bad words added to the voice of the sentence. They didn't add anything to the information conveyed, but they slightly changed the tone in which it was conveyed.
My thinking is that this change of tone, if maintained throughout the story, will have an impact on the readers overall experience of the book. It won't have any impact on plot or story or events, but it'll create some kind of feeling that they will associate with the book and the story and the characters.
I believe this is a good thing.

To my understanding the concept of voice is something quite intangible. Something that there aren't really any rules for and which develops over time as you get more experienced as a writer. I do think that once you get a grasp of it you can use it to great effect to alter the mood of both scenes and stories.

The difficulty at the moment lies in judging the balance between characteristic writing (voice) and efficient writing (lean, active prose). I feel I've got a decent grip on the voice I'm going for at the moment, but I'm easily carried away into a vague, indistinct purple haze that doesn't really bring the story forward.

Is anyone else having issues with this, or even thinking about it? What's your take on it?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 5, 2013)

> My issue at the moment is that the more active and efficient your prose is, the less room there is for narrative voice. I'm not saying there's no room for it, but I think that with tighter writing there's less space for the little fluff that gives your language its character. You can probably still have a distinctive voice even with extremely tight writing, but I believe it's probably more difficult. That said, when it does work, it probably works really well.



I'm probably not the best person to advise you on this because, while I believe that (character) voice has its place, I don't put it as highly as others.

That being said, three points:

1. It's my position that voice is about more than just wording.  Voice is about what the character sees as much as about how he describes seeing it.

2. I think it's a lot like setting a scene.  You don't describe everything in the tiniest of detail; you use a cardboard tree to stand in for a forest.  Just as in scenery, a little bit of variation goes a lot way.  If you pepper your narrative and dialogue with useless words, you're going to turn off the reader.

3. One way I create a unique character voice is to understand the character.  The intellectual ones use bigger words than the dumber ones.  One who is a merchant and focused on money tends to use words associated with business and his statements reflect his fascination with profit and loss.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 5, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> 1. It's my position that voice is about more than just wording.  Voice is about what the character sees as much as about how he describes seeing it.



This is an aspect I hadn't considered and it got me thinking. When I'm writing a scene for a character, I should probably let the character's voice influence how the scene is written. I don't mean in just dialogue and thought, but in what is described as well. One character walking down a street will view it differently than another and it could be reflected in the description of the street (assuming a description is needed of course). 


Your other points makes sense. I like a little more depth in my descriptions, but I think that's mainly a case of personal preference. I won't argue with the logic though. I guess you could say I like to glue some twigs on to my cardboard trees.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 5, 2013)

> When I'm writing a scene for a character, I should probably let the character's voice influence how the scene is written.



Absolutely!  



> I like a little more depth in my descriptions, but I think that's mainly a case of personal preference. I won't argue with the logic though. I guess you could say I like to glue some twigs on to my cardboard trees.



Definitely a personal preference thing to an extent.  I add the qualification because description impacts pace.  If you want an adventure novel, you probably don't want tons of description even if that is your taste.  Epic fantasy, on the other hand, tends to lend itself more to accepting details.

I think I'm going more for an adventure story that has epic elements, so I'm keeping my pace fast and tension level high.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 5, 2013)

Voice seems to be a pair of things. One is your natural story-telling "style", and the other is the collection of experiences that makes you unique. Voice is how that comes through in writing. My humor, my taste for the ludicrous, my views of society and psychology, the sort of details that interest me about people, the things that are important to me, what I hate and what I love, they infect everything I write.

We all know someone who can tell a really good story about a trip to the store to buy eggs, and we know someone who couldn't tell you about a road accident involving wild elephants with any listener engagement. It is the kind of details you mention, the tempo, the juxtaposition, the passion, the pathos, the humor, etc... all those elements are part of voice. I think everyone can learn to be a story-teller, it is just a matter of feeling free to do so, and learning how to do it in your own voice in a way that it is interesting for others. 

I say natural, though you could possibly "affect" a voice and mask your self in a way. For example, you could tell a story in first person through the eyes of a character who is very different from your every day self. Still, whatever that character thinks and does is coming through your perception of the world. 

I think you can hide your voice behind "tricks", we see it Hollywood a-la-Michael-Bay. Dazzle them with fast moving objects, generating tension and suspense, and nobody will notice there isn't much of a story being told. If you lack confidence in your own narrative voice, you can keep up action and tension before you find yourself in the uncomfortable position of expressing yourself.

One of my favorite books is The Grapes of Wrath, recently re-read. There are countless different elements that Steinbeck could have chosen to present to us, but the images he delivered were painted on the inside of his skull, and came out through the words. We saw that world through his vision, he highlighted certain details that spoke to us of the things that were of import to his mind. There were shifts when he goes off and shuffles a series of images past the reader, like a kind of slide show cross-section of what is happening to "the people" in the land, and you imagine the characters living through that, in fast forward. He then juxtaposes that with up-close action with the main characters. He is able to confidently shift between these modes of story telling, and there is a continuity in his voice. Other authors would find some other way to do that, not merely by selecting a different device for structural reasons, but by selecting a device that works for their voice. 

I think you can write very self-consciously, and I am not sure if that is good or not. The best poetry I write is when I am drunk and just riffing off emotions and images, with the rational part of my brain turned mostly off. Of course, my sober editing is far superior to anything I might do under the influence. Unfortunately, for health and social reasons, I can't be drunk all the time, so I've had to learn how to let go and write while sober. If I think of audience first, what I write often stinks. I've got to try to write what makes me excited/angry/sad/triumphant, etc... and to hell with what people might think. I know that for me, when I write self-consciously, the end product is less interesting than when I just let go.

In the end, you have to find what works for you, and for what people seem to like in your writing.


----------



## Malik (Nov 5, 2013)

Svrtnsse said:


> When I'm writing a scene for a character, I should probably let the character's voice influence how the scene is written.



This. Voice can change with POV.

You need to practice consciously writing in specific voices, though, and practice both limiting and consciously switching POV's, so that you can get a feel for it. Do it enough, and your transitions will become natural and then you can stop thinking about it and let your editor worry. 

Voice, especially in limited 3rd person, is dynamic. Similarly, POV is organic. You'll get to a point where you'll just know whose voice something should be in and whose POV you're looking through. Or maybe you won't; a scene just won't feel right and you'll go back and rewrite it from another POV or in another voice and it will click.

When I say that voice and POV should be natural, I say it with extreme caution because until you've got many solid years of hard writing behind you, you can really balls-up your POV and your voice if you just buffalo your way through without learning it. Just because it's organic doesn't mean it doesn't require work. It takes years of writing -- sometimes a lifetime -- to get to the point where your prose feels natural.



BWFoster78 said:


> description impacts pace.



Fuel for another thread, but also this. So much, this.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 5, 2013)

Svrtnsse said:


> My issue at the moment is that the more active and efficient your prose is, the less room there is for narrative voice. I'm not saying there's no room for it, but I think that with tighter writing there's less space for the little fluff that gives your language its character. You can probably still have a distinctive voice even with extremely tight writing, but I believe it's probably more difficult. That said, when it does work, it probably works really well.


I don't think tight writing eliminates voice at all. Unlike Brian, I think a strong sense of voice is very important. As a reader, a strong voice can certainly improve the experience.

I'll tell you this.... Brian and I have similar views on craft. We probably mirror each others beliefs the vast majority of the time, and I know we both incorporate a tight writing style. That being said, if you read one chapter from his WIP & followed immediately with one of mine, there would likely be drastic differences in your reader experience. We will have a different voice. 

I agree with Brian that much of voice can be character directed. If you want a great example of this, pick up Abercrombie''s "Best Served Cold". The character Morveer reads very different from the others. He has a distinct condescension that permeates his thought and language. That is character voice.

Don't fret too much about voice. It will come. You just need to write, write, and write. In my opinion, most authors find their voice by emulating other writers, and then failing. Somewhere in that phase they branch off into the discovery of their own unique style. Just be you, the voice will grow as your understanding of writing grows and matures.


----------



## psychotick (Nov 5, 2013)

Hi,

Yeah voice is interesting. I think every writer has one, but every book has several. The voice of the writer as he writes the book, setting scene, character, plot, language, grammar, rhythm etc. Then there's the voices of the characters themselves as they survey their world etc and you as the reader get to peer into their heads and see through their eyes. And pace is the natural enemy of voice - and other parts of the novel like description. 

Let's face it, if you want rapid pace to engender a feeling excitement, you're going to cut everything out except the plot. Best examples I can think of at the moment would be "The Man With Golden Torc" and the following books. When I first read these books I was surprised by Simon Green's change in writing style, and I wasn't sure I liked it as much as his earlier work. It was simply too bare. But as a reader I adapted and the story / world is good. He left just enough in. 

But there's a catch. When writing becomes that bare it loses something, for me anyway. And to my mind the work of fantasy writers like Stephen Donaldson and Robert Holdstock with their longer prose, more drawn out description, far more detailed world building, are more engaging. Even Simon Green's earlier works like Blue Moon Rising are more enjoyable. 

To me reading a novel should not be a breathless race. I don't read just for excitement. I read to enjoy, to bury myself in the world and the characters, to live through their tale. As a corollary to that I've read Blue Moon Rising several times, but I will never read the Eddie Drood books again.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Devor (Nov 5, 2013)

How are you defining "tight"?

If it's relevant for establishing the character's perspective and immersing the reader, then you include it.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 5, 2013)

Devor said:


> How are you defining "tight"?


That's the billion dollar question though isn't it? 

I'll give it a go though.
To me, the way I understand it (and with only a few minutes to think about it)...
...the tightest writing is that in which anything but the absolute bare minimum needed to move the plot forward has been eliminated.

I doubt anyone will accept this without arguing and I'll probably change my mind about it in the next thirty minutes, but at least it's a statement - a starting point for further discussion.



Devor said:


> If it's relevant for establishing the character's perspective and immersing the reader, then you include it.


That's good writing. That's difficult.


----------



## Penpilot (Nov 5, 2013)

I agree that loose prose doesn't mean you lose voice. IMHO you lose voice if you overly tighten something. BUT you can lose voice if it's too loose because the voice gets drown out by the sea of unnecessary fluff. 

When to loosen your prose and when to tighten it up is about feel, which IMHO you learn by practice-practice-practice. Each story is unique in what it needs and what you're trying to achieve. A lot of times you don't realize how much plumpness there is in a story until you deeply examine it, getting at the heart of exactly what you're trying to say.

Practice exercise, take one of your short stories and cut the word count by 25%, then do it again another 25%. This is about putting yourself in a position of making very tough decisions on your world count, where taking out one word can something significantly.

One time I had a word count limit of 4000 words and the story I wrote was 5000. I managed to cut it down to 3750 words without loosing anything key, and I used the extra 250 words to make the story more full.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 5, 2013)

Penpilot said:


> Practice exercise, take one of your short stories and cut the word count by 25%, then do it again another 25%. This is about putting yourself in a position of making very tough decisions on your world count, where taking out one word can something significantly.



Great suggestion. Thanks. 




Edit: ... I totally missed it. :/


----------



## Ireth (Nov 5, 2013)

Penpilot said:


> taking out one word can something significantly.



I see what you there. XDD


----------



## Ankari (Nov 6, 2013)

I'm trying to think of a fantasy novel I read that used tight prose and blew my mind away. I can't. I can make a list of the books written by authors who didn't adhere to artificial measures of progress.

But you'll ask "What do you mean by artificial measures of progress?"

Everyone on these boards wants to be a writer, and we only represent a fraction of a percentage of the population with the same aspirations. How do you tell ten million people how to better their writing without reading ten million samples of their works and combing over their technique to fine tune their skill? You create blanket rules that are dispensed as milestones of an amateur writer's skill. Something measurable that writers can assess at any given point. If you are using so many words, you failed. If you are using so many adverbs per total words, you failed. If you are using too many of the "no-no" words, you failed.

Then, when the writer has finally achieved the sacred formula of lean, active writing, all the established names will tell you the true learning begins.

I would advise people to stop worrying about anything formulaic, and work on substantive content. Work on using the right word, on creating identifiable characters, on taking an old idea and spit-polishing it so that it appears new, on creating an immersive world, on your comedic mind (everyone needs a laugh once in a while), on your dramatic heart, and, finally, creating a great story.

Listen. If you go to the compost pile, place it in a nice, perfectly square box, use the best wrapping paper money can buy, and silk ribbons freshly imported from a small village in China, what do you ultimately have in the box?

We are carvers. Take the raw material that permeates our everyday existence, carve it with sharp tools until it best represents the idea in your head, and gift it to the world.


----------



## Jabrosky (Nov 6, 2013)

Does anyone else wonder if the nature of a story's setting might affect its ideal voice? For some reason I tend to imagine characters in modern and futuristic settings as generally speaking in a more informal, slangy manner than their historical and fantastical counterparts. On the other hand, really fancy language with lots of big words sounds better coming from aristocrats or scholars than peasantry, common soldiers, or tribal characters.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 6, 2013)

Ankari said:


> We are carvers. Take the raw material that permeates our everyday existence, carve it with sharp tools until it best represents the idea in your head, and gift it to the world.



Not just pretty words, Michelangelo said as much:



> I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free.



Every idea I have becomes clearer the next time I think about it, a poem gets trimmed down, the real story in the novel emerges. I actually wrote a poem about this very idea. It was about a fellow poet's style, a friend of mine, I was emulating his style in writing it, echoing Michelangelo as homage and lesson:



> *master*
> 
> within
> the marble
> ...



There is a lot of noise in our heads and in our hands when we go to make something. The thing that comes out of it is rarely the same we thought it would be. We have a plan, an outline, an idea, but in the making, the cutting, the carving, the sculpting, we find something of ourselves, of truths we hold, of questions we have, laid bare in the words we write. If we don't do that carving, we are merely setting up a stage full of fancy sets but not really telling anything. When you dig down, you find you put a lot of stuff there you thought was vital, but it just gets in the way. 

I didn't mean to get so "what is the nature of art" here at 9:30 AM, but hey, when the spirit strikes you...


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 6, 2013)

Scribble! That's beautiful.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 6, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> Does anyone else wonder if the nature of a story's setting might affect its ideal voice? For some reason I tend to imagine characters in modern and futuristic settings as generally speaking in a more informal, slangy manner than their historical and fantastical counterparts. On the other hand, really fancy language with lots of big words sounds better coming from aristocrats or scholars than peasantry, common soldiers, or tribal characters.



That's a good question. We are greatly affected by our pop culture. There are other modes of "being" but as western television and internet washes over and through us, we can find it disingenuous to speak using great words. We're too ironical.

Postmodernism is anathema to ancient magical thinking. People would speak in oaths and curses because they believed that words would have an effect on the universe. We do still believe that, but it is relegated to superstition. "Don't say it's going to rain on picnic day! You'll jinx us!" (Really? How?) People who speak with a certainty of the magic of their reality, or the certainty of their position in the universe are able to do so un-ironically. 

Fancy language without conviction would sound foppish and annoying at worst, or crazy at best. We don't (in general) believe in the divine right of kings, and if we hear someone shouting about that sort of thing today, we'd think them nuts. So, in order to pull off the "ancient mode" of speaking, the character has to believe it, and everything in the story has to hold that up because we need to make the leap from our modern day mentality to that old way.

It certainly isn't dead in the world, there are other societies where you can speak un-ironically in old forms of address, but they are being eroded by western culture. If you take wise-cracking suburban teenagers and toss them in with ancient gods, you have at best a comedy. If you put characters who believe and fear them, with a sense of destiny and reverence, as though they are cut from the same cloth - they belong there, and are believable.

How to pull off that sort of "ancient mode" or "high address"? Your character has got to believe in it, and you've got to make the reader believe that they believe in it. The characters can transform from "modern" to "fantastical", by becoming immersed and believing in the world. Narnia and Harry Potter do this.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 6, 2013)

> You create blanket rules that are dispensed as milestones of an amateur writer's skill. Something measurable that writers can assess at any given point. If you are using so many words, you failed. If you are using so many adverbs per total words, you failed. If you are using too many of the "no-no" words, you failed.



I like how you present this.  It's exactly how I feel about the rules - a way to give beginners a path to improvement.  Granted, the best way to help someone is to painstakingly comb through their work and say, "This didn't work.  This is why I feel it didn't work."  Unfortunately, there is no time to do that for even one person.  How can you possibly do that for everyone?

In the absence of detailed feedback and personal instruction, telling them to learn the rules - both the what and the why - is the best place that I can think of to start.



> Then, when the writer has finally achieved the sacred formula of lean, active writing, all the established names will tell you the true learning begins.



Yes.  Exactly this.  The rules are a starting point.



> I would advise people to stop worrying about anything formulaic, and work on substantive content. Work on using the right word, on creating identifiable characters, on taking an old idea and spit-polishing it so that it appears new, on creating an immersive world, on your comedic mind (everyone needs a laugh once in a while), on your dramatic heart, and, finally, creating a great story.



I divide knowledge of writing into two categories: technique (how to convey information) and storytelling (what information to convey).  There's overlap between the two, so the line isn't perfectly distinct.  I find the differentiation helpful, however.

I think that, in order to be successful, an author is going to have to become proficient in both aspects.  Granted, some authors may be so good at storytelling that weak technique is overlooked (the reverse is seldom true).  My path was to focus on technique first because, though not easy to learn by any stretch, it, imo, is the easier of the two.

Bottom line of what I'm trying to say is that, while storytelling is the more important of the two, at some point you're going to have to be at least competent with technique.  Thus, I don't think that studying technique is any kind of waste of time.

That is not to say that you shouldn't be learning storytelling (which is how I define the aspects Ankari mentioned).  Again, storytelling is, in the long run, more important to your success than technique.

My advice: learn everything you can.  Now.  From every source that you can find.  Pick out what you like and what can help you.  Discard the rest.

You never know what little piece of information is going to cause you to transport your writing to a higher level of skill.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 6, 2013)

Ankari said:


> I would advise people to stop worrying about anything formulaic, and work on substantive content. Work on using the right word, on creating identifiable characters, on taking an old idea and spit-polishing it so that it appears new, on creating an immersive world, on your comedic mind (everyone needs a laugh once in a while), on your dramatic heart, and, finally, creating a great story.



A-friggin-men!

Some people get so worked up about following every rule from every online writer (most of whom have never had a bestseller in their career) to the letter that they might as well be robots. "BEEP. Rule# 1042 says I must insert plot device A into slot B."

Writing is not computer programming. If you get a line a little bit "wrong" according to the endless tomes of "rules," the book won't crash. In fact, it might even be better, because it's more creative and less staid and predictable.

I've used this example before, but imagine if Dali had followed the endless "rules" of painting. We'd never have seen _The Persistence of Memory_, the famous painting with the melting clocks.

If you wanna talk books, the Harry Potter books have a lot of adverbs, which is supposed to be verboten. _Hunger Games_ includes a lot of "telling," thus breaking the "show, don't tell" rule. If breaking the rules is supposed to be bad for your book, how is it that these stories are so popular?


----------



## Malik (Nov 6, 2013)

Ankari said:


> I would advise people to stop worrying about anything formulaic, and work on substantive content. Work on using the right word, on creating identifiable characters, on taking an old idea and spit-polishing it so that it appears new, on creating an immersive world, on your comedic mind (everyone needs a laugh once in a while), on your dramatic heart, and, finally, creating a great story.



Also this.

That said, I want to throw a rock at the nest. 

Writing is an academic pursuit. It's research and experimentation and then documenting what you've found. 

You absolutely have to, have to, HAVE TO understand the rules of the language first. You have to know what the traditionally accepted norms are in your chosen genre, and you have to understand the craft of writing enough to understand why those norms exist. You don't have to adhere to them. But you have to know them. You have to know when you're going over them. _(EDIT: If you don't understand why you need to know this, then you _really_ need to learn all of this. Immediately. Drop everything and start researching.)_

Studying composition feels like digging ditches. It sucks. So does literary analysis and deconstruction, both of which, to me, feel like looking backstage at Disneyland and seeing guys pushing mops and dumpsters around, and someone in a Mickey suit smoking a cigarette with the head under his arm. But you have to go there if you want to work there. 

Work on your prose. Write until your fingers bleed. Find your voice. But do your homework or you'll waste years.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 6, 2013)

Malik said:


> You absolutely have to, have to, HAVE TO understand the rules of the language first. You have to know what the traditionally accepted norms are in your chosen genre, and you have to understand the craft of writing enough to understand why those norms exist. *You don't have to adhere to them.* But you have to know them.



The part I put in bold is the part that gets left out by so often, and instead you have people dispensing "rules" advice as though it is necessary that one follow them in any given instance to have "good writing." Which is what we lawyers call 'a load of bollocks.'


----------



## Scribble (Nov 6, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> The part I put in bold is the part that gets left out by so often, and instead you have people dispensing "rules" advice as though it is necessary that one follow them in any given instance to have "good writing." Which is what we lawyers call 'a load of bollocks.'



Amen. My daughter at 5 said it best when coloring with crayons: 





> The lines are just a suggestion.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 6, 2013)

Malik said:


> Studying composition feels like digging ditches. It sucks. So does literary analysis and deconstruction, both of which, to me, feel like looking backstage at Disneyland and seeing guys pushing mops and dumpsters around, and someone in a Mickey suit smoking a cigarette with the head under his arm. But you have to go there if you want to work there.



That made me laugh.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 6, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> The part I put in bold is the part that gets left out by so often, and instead you have people dispensing "rules" advice as though it is necessary that one follow them in any given instance to have "good writing." Which is what we lawyers call 'a load of bollocks.'



Exactly. That's why I compared it to computer programming. In programming, a single missed punctuation mark can cause the whole program to crash. Some people insist that fiction writing is the same, that if you don't follow every single rule the book won't be "good" and will "crash" (as in not sell).

However, fiction writing is not computer programming, and that's shown by the examples I cited above. You can break the "rules" in any number of ways and still have a runaway bestseller on your hands. If you tell an engaging story people won't care how often you use adverbs or The Ten Words That Shall Not Be Written. They'll be too immersed in the story to even notice it most of the time.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 6, 2013)

> Studying composition feels like digging ditches. It sucks. So does literary analysis and deconstruction, both of which, to me, feel like looking backstage at Disneyland and seeing guys pushing mops and dumpsters around, and someone in a Mickey suit smoking a cigarette with the head under his arm. But you have to go there if you want to work there.
> 
> Work on your prose. Write until your fingers bleed. Find your voice. But do your homework or you'll waste years.



This is well-stated.

I think one of the problems with a lot of self-published authors is that too many of them have the belief that writing fiction is something that one can pick up from high school English and doing a lot of pleasure reading.

I simply do not believe that is the case.  To write fiction well, you simply must learn, by whatever method, how to write fiction.


----------



## Malik (Nov 6, 2013)

I really do think, based on what I see in a lot of self-published fantasy and fiction, that there's a mass delusion among young writers that writing a best-selling novel is akin to becoming famous from posting a YouTube video. I really think it's symptomatic and generational to believe that you can be wildly successful without putting the hard, grinding, awful work in. But then, maybe I'm just old.

_EDIT: Perhaps young writers think that putting 60-100,000 words on paper _is_ hard, grinding, awful work. They haven't put enough time in at the rudiments of the craft to realize that writing all those words is the fun part._


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 6, 2013)

Malik said:


> I really do think, based on what I see in a lot of self-published fantasy and fiction, that there's a mass delusion among young writers that writing a best-selling novel is akin to becoming famous from posting a YouTube video. I really think it's symptomatic and generational to believe that you can be wildly successful without putting the hard, grinding, awful work in. But then, maybe I'm just old.



True, but that doesn't mean that will find success by blindly following a formulaic rules-laden approach to writing either. The best you'll get out of that is something that reads like it was written by a computer. The spark of creativity has to be there, and the author's voice has to come through -- something far too many of the "rules" conveniently forget.

Too often the "rules" seem to want to stifle the author's voice. Some authors write adverb-heavy prose, and it works for them (see JK Rowling). Some authors write using The Ten Words That Shall Not Be Written and do just fine. Asimov himself broke a cardinal rule of science fiction by not including a single alien species in any of his works... at a time when authors like EE "Doc" Smith, Robert Heinlein, and Arthur C. Clarke were coming up with aliens aplenty. Did breaking the rule not once but over and over and over again hurt Asimov's career? What's interesting is that after Asimov passed on, Gregory Benford took over the Foundation stories, and started including aliens, in accordance with the "rules" of science fiction. His first book such book, _Foundation's Fear_, is currently rated at just 2 stars on Amazon.

So much for "follow the rules and you'll be successful." It doesn't always work. In fact, I bet you could find a book from every well-known author that breaks at least one of the "rules" that those who've never written a best-seller try to sell to gullible authors.


----------



## Malik (Nov 6, 2013)

That is true, but what makes a master stylist is the ability to _meaningfully_ break the rules. You can't meaningfully break the rules unless you learn them, first. You absolutely, absolutely, have to learn them. And the only way to learn them is to write within them, even if it's writing stuff you don't publish or don't intend to. 

I write every day. Even if it's something I'm not getting paid for, or not part of my series, or something I would never, in a hundred years, want someone to read and attribute to me stylistically. Something goes on paper. Every day. Writing is how I tinker around in my shop. Words are my tools. Rules are the safety guides. Many master craftsmen work without safety equipment, but most, if you look closely, are missing a fingertip.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 6, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> True, but that doesn't mean that will find success by blindly following a formulaic rules-laden approach to writing either. The best you'll get out of that is something that reads like it was written by a computer. The spark of creativity has to be there, and the author's voice has to come through -- something far too many of the "rules" conveniently forget.
> 
> Too often the "rules" seem to want to stifle the author's voice. Some authors write adverb-heavy prose, and it works for them (see JK Rowling). Some authors write using The Ten Words That Shall Not Be Written and do just fine. Asimov himself broke a cardinal rule of science fiction by not including a single alien species in any of his works... at a time when authors like EE "Doc" Smith, Robert Heinlein, and Arthur C. Clarke were coming up with aliens aplenty. Did breaking the rule not once but over and over and over again hurt Asimov's career? What's interesting is that after Asimov passed on, Gregory Benford took over the Foundation stories, and started including aliens, in accordance with the "rules" of science fiction. His first book such book, _Foundation's Fear_, is currently rated at just 2 stars on Amazon.
> 
> So much for "follow the rules and you'll be successful." It doesn't always work. In fact, I bet you could find a book from every well-known author that breaks at least one of the "rules" that those who've never written a best-seller try to sell to gullible authors.



This is where I am going to say that writing fiction IS like writing software. There are dozens of methodologies, some obviously less reliable than others, some better than others, and within these nobody can agree on all the finer points. There are some elements of writing that are safe to generalize as good "use words and put them together to make sentences" all the way down to the minutiae of how to put together zippy dialogue or how to use description to convey mood.

If you take a first year programmer and you _don't_ plug him into a methodology, he won't produce anything resembling decent software. The day comes when that programmer will "get it", and will pick and choose his tools from experience. Rules are good for learning and when you are unsure.

There are bad methodologies as far as creativity goes. I hated, hated, RPG programming on AS/400. It was like filling out a form. Way to crush the creative aspects of programming, IBM! Then, I coded in C++ for the rest of the time, enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot! I created some overly complex frameworks in my youthful ambition, I created many problems for myself, but I learned, and I followed the advice of the experts, by and large.

To me, writing is a _craft_ you need to learn. Newbies need rules to keep them from writing garbage.

Guess what? Not every programmer is going to become a great programmer. Most of them will remain as mediocre or poor programmers. The rules will let them do their job reasonably well. They won't write the great stuff, they will fill the shelf with mediocre or poor software. Then, some programmers get that blend of creativity, wisdom, daring, and individuality, and they apply what they've learned (the stuff worth keeping, and the stuff worth avoiding) and they create good software. Sometimes, they create _great_ software.

The same goes for writing. Some people, will simply never be good writers. They can learn all the rules, but they just don't see it, they just don't have the spark. Then, there are people who have the spark, but they never learned enough rules to get anything produced. They don't know what to do, so they don't know what _not_ to do.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 6, 2013)

Okay, Scribble, Malik, I have a challenge for you.

Write me a short story following every single rule that has been written for writers to follow. Then submit it to all the usual short story markets (Asimov's, F&SF, and so on). Then report on how may rejection letters you got before it was accepted.

If the rules really make for good writing, the rejection letters should be zero.


----------



## Malik (Nov 6, 2013)

I didn't say that following the rules make for good, marketable writing. I said that _knowing the rules _makes for good, marketable writing. It's painfully apparent when a writer has no clue what they're doing, as opposed to a writer who has a firm grasp of the craft and is clearly making a stylistic point.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 6, 2013)

Malik said:


> I really do think, based on what I see in a lot of self-published fantasy and fiction, that there's a mass delusion among young writers that writing a best-selling novel is akin to becoming famous from posting a YouTube video. I really think it's symptomatic and generational to believe that you can be wildly successful without putting the hard, grinding, awful work in. But then, maybe I'm just old.
> 
> _EDIT: Perhaps young writers think that putting 60-100,000 words on paper _is_ hard, grinding, awful work. They haven't put enough time in at the rudiments of the craft to realize that writing all those words is the fun part._



I'm sure that generational concerns do enter into the picture, but I'm not sure it's the primary problem.  At some point, someone said, "Everybody has a book in them."  Everyone took that to be true, and it cheapened the work it takes to create something good.

I think it's natural to think, "I like reading; I can do that."  Combine that with most would be authors having been good at high school English composition.  Add in an easy way to get your work on the market.

It all equals the current quality level.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 6, 2013)

Malik said:


> I didn't say that following the rules make for good, marketable writing. I said that _knowing the rules _makes for good, marketable writing. It's painfully apparent when a writer has no clue what they're doing, as opposed to a writer who is clearly making a stylistic point.



The point is, the people trying to sell these rules to gullible new authors almost always promise something along the lines of "follow this rule, your writing will sell!"

That's just not true. And that's my point. You cannot write saleable fiction by following every single rule that's out there.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 6, 2013)

I think you missed my point. Rules don't make for "good" writing. If you don't know what the hell you are doing, they at least enable you to produce "mediocre" writing. That last element is vision, creativity, zing, spark, whatever. Good writing skills won't save you from being dull-minded. How many CW grads go on to write utterly boring and vapid, but perfectly written works?

You need both craft and inspiration to produce _great_ fiction, in my opinion.

Lets look at this top ten list of 20th century fiction:


#	Year	Title	Author
1	1922	Ulysses	James Joyce
2	1925	The Great Gatsby	F. Scott Fitzgerald
3	1916	A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man	James Joyce
4	1955	Lolita	Vladimir Nabokov
5	1932	Brave New World	Aldous Huxley
6	1929	The Sound and the Fury	William Faulkner
7	1961	Catch-22	Joseph Heller
8	1940	Darkness at Noon	Arthur Koestler
9	1913	Sons and Lovers	D. H. Lawrence
10	1939	The Grapes of Wrath	John Steinbeck

Are any of these books written by people lacking in strong writing craftmanship? Lacking in vision?

Now, go look at the least sold self-pubbed genre novels, any category you like and compare.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 6, 2013)

Scribble said:


> Now, go look at the least sold self-pubbed genre novels, any category you like and compare.



Again, with the denigration of self-pubbed authors.

_Foundation's Fear_ was published by a big name house. 2 stars is worse than the average self-pubbed book.

Feist's latest few books were also published by one of the Big Six publishers. There are technical errors all over the place.

Just because someone got through the minefield that was traditional publishing pre-Kindle doesn't mean they were producing good work.

And just because someone is self-published doesn't mean their work is dreck. Look at Marion Harmon (if you haven't tried his books, you can't knock them). Look at our own Michael Sullivan, who started off self-pubbed.

There have been writers of varying skill levels since man first put pen to paper. Ye Olden Days before Kindle were not a gold mine of nothing but bestselling books, there were far more flops than bestsellers even with all the gatekeepers making sure every single author followed the rules.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 6, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> The point is, the people trying to sell these rules to gullible new authors almost always promise something along the lines of "follow this rule, your writing will sell!"
> 
> That's just not true. And that's my point. You cannot write saleable fiction by following every single rule that's out there.



It's like anything else. Only a fool gets all his advice from one source. I've been reading Writer's Digest for about 20 years. I read articles that sounded like good advice, and I read some I didn't entirely buy. However, reading all that advice gives you a 360 view of the craft. Following it all slavishly isn't what I recommend for anyone, but getting your ear to the ground about _the kind of problems you can have in writing and ways people have figured out how to deal with them_ is a good way to learning, in my humble opinion.

Teach yourself the things other people know.

When I started trying to write back at 20, all I had was one college writing class. My writing stank. Big ideas, but I didn't know how to put it together.

I don't know everything, but I have learned what works for me. _All_ the advice isn't worth taking. You've got to have some horse-sense. If you weren't born with a nose for bad advice, you should make it your responsibility to learn how it smells.


----------



## Malik (Nov 6, 2013)

True, but without at least Freshman Comp you're just spinning your wheels. The people explaining the rules to you are trying to help. 

It's the difference between Albert Ayler playing "Ghosts" and a six-year-old honking into a saxophone. They may both sound like noise to the uninitiated, but if you know advanced music theory, you can tell Ayler was a genius. His abilities in structure and composition literally transcended what we consider music. We're still trying to figure out where he was coming from. On the other hand, it's not for everyone; you can't dance to it.

Or, for you rock aficionados, compare Jimi Hendrix's Star Spangled Banner versus a ten-year-old just learning how feedback works. 

You've got to be able to do it, before you can do it.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 6, 2013)

Scribble said:


> It's like anything else. Only a fool gets all his advice from one source. I've been reading Writer's Digest for about 20 years. I read articles that sounded like good advice, and I read some I didn't entirely buy. However, reading all that advice gives you a 360 view of the craft. Following it all slavishly isn't what I recommend for anyone, but getting your ear to the ground about _the kind of problems you can have in writing and ways people have figured out how to deal with them_ is a good way to learning, in my humble opinion.
> 
> Teach yourself the things other people know.
> 
> ...



I'll agree with that, but there are people even in these environs who push every rule they see online as the latest "You Must Do This Or Your Book Will Flop" rule.

That's the mindset I am fighting against, and will fight against until I breathe my last. (Oops, I broke a rule there. I didn't say breathe my last what. Do I mean breathe my last song? My last shirt? My last kitten?)


----------



## Scribble (Nov 6, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> And just because someone is self-published doesn't mean their work is dreck. Look at Marion Harmon (if you haven't tried his books, you can't knock them).



Maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly, but you seem to be glomming onto all the wrong points, or taking the opposite of my meaning.

I never said that, nor do I believe it. I am all for self-pub. What I was saying was, if you want to quickly find an example of bad craft/lame vision, that's the easiest place to find it. Not at the top, at the bottom of the stack. Not a single person besides the author need read the work, they just need to fill out the form and click submit.

The shelves at the store are filled with mediocre writing, but in general a few anecdotes aside, there are a lot of people working to ensure that there is little pure dreck on the shelf.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 6, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> I'll agree with that, but there are people even in these environs who push every rule they see online as the latest "You Must Do This Or Your Book Will Flop" rule.
> 
> That's the mindset I am fighting against, and will fight against until I breathe my last. (Oops, I broke a rule there. I didn't say breathe my last what. Do I mean breathe my last song? My last shirt? My last kitten?)



I get what you mean. Those people are everywhere, waggling their little articles in your face!


----------



## Ankari (Nov 6, 2013)

I know this is can lead to a carousel argument. I'll try my best to steer this down a linear path.

The "rules of writing" don't exist. They are subjective to the time of the written work. But, take a step back from the rules, think of how they became rules, and you'll understand that one year's rules is yesteryear's no-no. Think of a story written in the 1920s, and compare it to the stories of today. 

Rules are vetted by committee.  They are not based on any set principle meant to extrapolate the most efficient method of communication through the vast dictionary available to a language.

Of all the languages, the English language is the hardest to pin down with rules. It's best to create a list of principles for writers to work through. I'm not trying to change the title used, rather supplanting all rules and creating a new list of principles. Some rules may carry over, and I'll accept that.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 6, 2013)

Malik said:


> True, but without at least Freshman Comp you're just spinning your wheels. The people explaining the rules to you are trying to help.
> 
> It's the difference between Albert Ayler playing "Ghosts" and a six-year-old honking into a saxophone. They may both sound like noise to the uninitiated, but if you know advanced music theory, you can tell Ayler was a genius. His abilities in structure and composition literally transcended what we consider music. We're still trying to figure out where he was coming from. On the other hand, it's not for everyone; you can't dance to it.
> 
> ...



I think we're talking past each other.

From this, I get the sense you're talking about basic grammatical and punctuation rules. Of course you need to know those, and follow them.

What I am talking about are the endless blog posts promoting The Thirteen Things Every Successful Author Must Do! (exclamation points and caps included). Most of those rules can be tossed out the window. For example, look at these "Basic Rules for Writing Fiction" published by another person I've never heard of.



> Rule 1:  The first chapter describes or shows an incident when life is interrupted -things change. The character arc can begin after the theme has started, but needs to start in the first five chapters. Notice that in many movies, a big “aha” occurs about 18 minutes into the movie.



Well, now, not always. In fact, not often. In David Eddings' Belgariad -- all five books bestsellers -- the big event doesn't happen to the MC in chapter one of the first book (_Pawn of Prophecy_). It doesn't happen until chapter five, so we get four chapters of learning about the MC and those around him, and the setting... and it didn't seem to hurt his sales a bit.

In Jim Butcher's Codex Alera, the MC doesn't even appear in the book until chapter three of book one (_Furies of Calderon_). Again, a wildly successful story, and it breaks one of this person's self described "Basic Rules."

Do you see the point I'm making now?


----------



## Malik (Nov 6, 2013)

I should add, I'm not knocking self-publishing. There are some fantastic self-published writers. But they are the exception and not the rule right now. Some of the self-published stuff I'm running across is face-in-my-hands-groaning bad. And the more books that uneducated and unskilled writers self-publish, the harder it will be to dig through and find the really good ones, by the authors who took the time to not only say what they had to say, but who devoted their lives to learning how to say it well. 

That's why I'm a stickler for knowing the rules. Put the time in. Learn the craft. Then develop your style. There are no shortcuts in this.


----------



## Malik (Nov 6, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> I think we're talking past each other.
> 
> From this, I get the sense you're talking about basic grammatical and punctuation rules. Of course you need to know those, and follow them.



Yes, we are. I'm talking about advanced grammatical rules and stylism, but yeah. And yes, you do have to follow them. And wow, nobody does.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 6, 2013)

Scribble said:


> The shelves at the store are filled with mediocre writing, but in general a few anecdotes aside, there are a lot of people working to ensure that there is little pure dreck on the shelf.



Obviously not enough, Feist's _At The Gates of Darkness_ managed to get to shelves with more technical errors than I see in the average self-pubbed book. Are there self-pubbed books with more errors? Yes, but there are also tons with fewer errors than this Big Name Author Published By A Big Six Publisher had in his book.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Nov 6, 2013)

Since this seems to be turning into a rules derail, I'd like to put forth my simple thoughts on the subject:

There are multiple rulesets!

It's entirely possible to create a set of rules that, if perfectly followed, will lead to a story that has perfect clarity. This story will have terrible flow, and will probably have terrible voice.

I myself have outlined rules that, if followed, are all but guaranteed to get people to describe your stories as "flowing." If you were to never break these rules, your stories would be unclear and confusing, and might also have voice issues.

Voice is more complicated than both, because there are so many voices you can speak in. The rules for your own voice must be self-determined.

Add in grammar rules, which aid clarity, but if perfectly followed hurt flow and voice. Add in techniques used to give the reader a mental image of the scene. Add in techniques used to convey characters' emotions. Add in whatever special tricks you want to use (like that thing Dan Brown does where his sentence structures turn inside-out when he wants to make the reader feel scared and anxious.) You can't follow all the rules all the time, because the rules break the other rules!

The more rules you know, the more things you can do. You can focus in on clarity in a potentially confusing scene. You can focus in on emotion in a scene where a character is on the verge of breaking down. You can decide what to optimize for, according to context and your own judgment. But you can't make one ruleset supreme, and you need to learn where and how to make sacrifices.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 6, 2013)

Malik said:


> Yes, we are. I'm talking about advanced grammatical rules and stylism, but yeah. And yes, you do have to follow them. And wow, nobody does.



Even Raymond Feist doesn't in some of his later books. And lo and behold, he gets published by one of the Big Six Publishers! And people buy his [expletive deleted].


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 6, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> Since this seems to be turning into a rules derail, I'd like to put forth my simple thoughts on the subject:
> 
> There are multiple rulesets!
> 
> ...



That I'll wholeheartedly agree with.


----------



## Malik (Nov 6, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> Even Raymond Feist doesn't in some of his later books. And lo and behold, he gets published by one of the Big Six Publishers! And people buy his [expletive deleted].



I shouldn't have said "follow them." I should have said, "learn them." My bad.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 6, 2013)

Malik said:


> I shouldn't have said "follow them." I should have said, "learn them." My bad.



Do you think JK Rowling ever read an article saying you should avoid adverbs?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 6, 2013)

Ankari said:


> I know this is can lead to a carousel argument. I'll try my best to steer this down a linear path.
> 
> The "rules of writing" don't exist. They are subjective to the time of the written work. But, take a step back from the rules, think of how they became rules, and you'll understand that one year's rules is yesteryear's no-no. Think of a story written in the 1920s, and compare it to the stories of today.
> 
> ...



I guess the question for me is one of logic: how do you learn to write fiction?

The best I can come up with is to have someone who understands writing look at your work and tell you what you're doing wrong.  Unfortunately, not many of us have the resources to employ a full-time writing teacher.

The next best path I can figure is to find out what, in general, other writers have done that has worked.  Again, not my top choice, but it seems better than the option of ????

For me, that's where the "rules of writing" come in.  It's a list of principles that writers have created in an attempt to describe what they've done that has worked.

If an aspiring author approaches them as such, they are a fantastic tool for advancing ability.

If an aspiring author reads a pithily stated rule and thinks, "Wow, I absolutely have to do exactly what that rule states without exception even though I've done absolutely no research to understand the reason for the rule," then I question the mental aptitude of that aspiring author.

I do fully contend that, if the options are:

1. Blindly follow the rules.

Or

2. Go your own path completely and ignore the existence of the rules

That the beginner who follows option 1 is going to progress faster and produce better initial works than the person who follows option 2.  I understand, however, that reasonable people (such as Steerpike) seem to disagree on this particular issue.


----------



## Cairnswrites (Nov 6, 2013)

Hey folks
loving this thread, lots of great discussion. 
I couldn't agree more regarding the rules, they are changing and evolving, as language has and always will do. 
Having said that, surely all rules with regards to writing are there to support the reader. What we, as writers, are endeavoring to do, is tell a story in the most effective way possible for the reader. If the use of certain rules/guidelines makes this happen, I view them as a positive aid to my writing. So, whilst the blanket assertion that rules MUST be followed is obviously excessive, learning the basics and applying them well is certainly a good start to becoming a great story teller. 
Just to return to an earlier part of the thread, regarding voice, I think that another description of voice could be the _atmosphere_ created within a story. I'm thinking specifically of Neil Gaiman, or Stephen King, two authors you can spot a mile away. The atmosphere they create within their books is very distinctive, almost like an extra layer of... something, generally and frustratingly, undefinable, that marks the work as theirs. 
This comes about, I think, through the choice of words they put one after the next, regardless of the level of description versus pacing. What I think I'm trying to say is that voice comes from every single word choice, and how they go together. Pacing, or lack thereof, is separate from this. I think 
cheers


----------



## Feo Takahari (Nov 6, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> Do you think JK Rowling ever read an article saying you should avoid adverbs?



J.K. Rowling's greatest strength is off-the-wall worldbuilding, where you never know what's going to come from around every corner. Her technical skills, while serviceable, never exactly shine. 

Then again, kids' fiction seems to benefit from substance over style--with occasional exceptions like Lemony Snickett, most great children's writers favor clear and easy-to-understand writing over playing games with language. You don't want to confuse your target audience, after all.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 6, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> J.K. Rowling's greatest strength is off-the-wall worldbuilding, where you never know what's going to come from around every corner. Her technical skills, while serviceable, never exactly shine.
> 
> Then again, kids' fiction seems to benefit from substance over style--with occasional exceptions like Lemony Snickett, most great children's writers favor clear and easy-to-understand writing over playing games with language. You don't want to confuse your target audience, after all.



Ahh... so throwing away one rule results in easier to understand writing. And yet the rule is supposed to make writing better? What can be better than something that's easy for the reader to understand?


----------



## Feo Takahari (Nov 6, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> Ahh... so throwing away one rule results in easier to understand writing. And yet the rule is supposed to make writing better? What can be better than something that's easy for the reader to understand?



Dude, I just mentioned this, and you said you wholeheartedly agreed. Very high clarity writing tends to have poor flow, and vice versa, so it's up to the author's judgment how much to go for either one.

To expand upon what I said earlier, I think the very first skill an author should learn is grammar, and clarity after that. Once you've got that down, the next thing to do is to develop your personal voice and figure out how you want to tell stories. Flow comes after that, and after that comes any fancy tricks you want to learn.


----------



## Malik (Nov 6, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> Do you think JK Rowling ever read an article saying you should avoid adverbs?



I don't know but I'll promise you she knew better. She has a BA with a dual first in French and Classical Studies, both of which require study in literature. 

I would bet you that she decided her narrative voice was adverb-heavy and she went with it anyway.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 6, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> Dude, I just mentioned this, and you said you wholeheartedly agreed. Very high clarity writing tends to have poor flow, and vice versa, so it's up to the author's judgment how much to go for either one.
> 
> To expand upon what I said earlier, I think the very first skill an author should learn is grammar, and clarity after that. Once you've got that down, the next thing to do is to develop your personal voice and figure out how you want to tell stories. Flow comes after that, and after that comes any fancy tricks you want to learn.



I know, but sometimes points have to be repeated for people to get them. Sometimes they sleep through the first time you mention the point.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 6, 2013)

Malik said:


> I should add, I'm not knocking self-publishing. There are some fantastic self-published writers. But they are the exception and not the rule right now. Some of the self-published stuff I'm running across is face-in-my-hands-groaning bad. And the more books that uneducated and unskilled writers self-publish, the harder it will be to dig through and find the really good ones, by the authors who took the time to not only say what they had to say, but who devoted their lives to learning how to say it well.
> 
> That's why I'm a stickler for knowing the rules. Put the time in. Learn the craft. Then develop your style. There are no shortcuts in this.



I agree with this completely.

I applaud and support the indie author who has produced a quality product.  In fact, if you know of any who meet that critieria in the scifi or fantasy genres, I'd love to know about them.  They are difficult to find amongst the throngs of people putting out subpar novels.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 6, 2013)

> I think the very first skill an author should learn is grammar, and clarity after that. Once you've got that down, the next thing to do is to develop your personal voice and figure out how you want to tell stories.



I put tension right after clarity.  It seems to be the next biggest issue for beginners and is critically important.


----------



## teacup (Nov 6, 2013)

> I do fully contend that, if the options are:
> 
> 1. Blindly follow the rules.
> 
> ...



I'm sure it depends on the individuals, but generally,  I would agree with this. I didn't know any writing rules or guidelines at all when I began. I just wrote, simple as that. I thought it sounded good, and so it must have been good. (I even used big words ;P) 
Very soon after joining this forum I discovered all these rules, and realised my writing was terrible. So I followed the rules, and improved. Now I've learned to use them well, I would think, and my writing has improved a lot more because of this.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Nov 6, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I put tension right after clarity.  It seems to be the next biggest issue for beginners and is critically important.



Hmm . . . I generally write slow-paced stories with relatively low tension, so I didn't give much thought to this. On the one hand, properly using tension can be a bit complex--I think it's harder to learn than clarity or even flow. On the other, if it's something that ruins a lot of stories, it could be worth learning early.

(Does this belong in a separate thread?)


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 6, 2013)

teacup said:


> I'm sure it depends on the individuals, but generally,  I would agree with this. I didn't know any writing rules or guidelines at all when I began. I just wrote, simple as that. I thought it sounded good, and so it must have been good. (I even used big word ;P)
> Very soon after joining this forum I discovered all these rules, and realised my writing was terrible. So I followed the rules, and improved. Now I've learned to use them well, I would think, and my writing has improved a lot more because of this.



Exactly my experience as well.  I'm not sure where you are in your path, but mine progressed much like this:

1. Writing really bad stuff with no feedback and thinking it was good
2. Discovering through feedback that my writing was really, really bad
3. Learning all the rules
4. Following rules too blindly to the detriment of my writing
5. Gaining an understanding of the rules
6. Identifying specific problems with my writing and working hard to improve them

I'm looking forward to finding out what the next step will be...


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 6, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> Hmm . . . I generally write slow-paced stories with relatively low tension, so I didn't give much thought to this. On the one hand, properly using tension can be a bit complex--I think it's harder to learn than clarity or even flow. On the other, if it's something that ruins a lot of stories, it could be worth learning early.
> 
> (Does this belong in a separate thread?)



Low tension is a valid choice.  To my way of thinking, no tension isn't.

One thing I've realized is that utilizing high tension helps to mask lacks in other areas.  My writing has a bunch of weaknesses, more than I'll be able get rid of fully for several years.  I think that, in the interim, focusing on developing tension will seriously help make my novels readable.  It seems a lot easier to find a market for high tension as it provides easy engagement for the reader.


----------



## teacup (Nov 6, 2013)

> Exactly my experience as well.  I'm not sure where you are in your path, but mine progressed much like this:
> 
> 1. Writing really bad stuff with no feedback and thinking it was good
> 2. Discovering through feedback that my writing was really, really bad
> ...



Same for me, I'd say.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Nov 6, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Low tension is a valid choice.  To my way of thinking, no tension isn't.
> 
> One thing I've realized is that utilizing high tension helps to mask lacks in other areas.  My writing has a bunch of weaknesses, more than I'll be able get rid of fully for several years.  I think that, in the interim, focusing on developing tension will seriously help make my novels readable.  It seems a lot easier to find a market for high tension as it provides easy engagement for the reader.



Sounds kind of like what I did for emotion. I focused heavily on how to show what characters are feeling, in the hopes that readers would feel it too.

(This might also relate to what I write--emotion is very useful in erotica, and tension is often minimized.)


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 6, 2013)

Cairnswrites said:


> Just to return to an earlier part of the thread, regarding voice, I think that another description of voice could be the _atmosphere_ created within a story. I'm thinking specifically of Neil Gaiman, or Stephen King, two authors you can spot a mile away. The atmosphere they create within their books is very distinctive, almost like an extra layer of... something, generally and frustratingly, undefinable, that marks the work as theirs.
> This comes about, I think, through the choice of words they put one after the next, regardless of the level of description versus pacing. What I think I'm trying to say is that voice comes from every single word choice, and how they go together. Pacing, or lack thereof, is separate from this. I think
> cheers



It's been very many years since I read anything by King so I don't remember much. I'm a big fan of Gaiman's style though. I think that, as you say, his voice is what comes through in the atmosphere of the book, but I probably couldn't explain it better than that.
My hunch is that voice/atmosphere etc comes from the little details that I, as a casual reader, don't think about. The choice and order of words probably has a lot to do with, but I think it's the consistence of those choices that create the overall effect and not the isolated instances.

As has been pointed out here and there in this thread though; voice is probably something that develops over time, whether you like it or not. I like to think I have a cool narrative voice, or that I'll develop one some day, but I think that for now, I'm probably better off just trying to figure out how to write something that someone else would enjoy reading. The voice will make itself heard sooner or later anyway.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 6, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> 1. Writing really bad stuff with no feedback and thinking it was good
> 2. Discovering through feedback that my writing was really, really bad
> 3. Learning all the rules
> 4. Following rules too blindly to the detriment of my writing
> ...



I'm on 3 and 5, carefully prodding 6 and trying to avoid getting trapped in 4.


----------



## Devor (Nov 6, 2013)

Svrtnsse said:


> To me, the way I understand it (and with only a few minutes to think about it)...
> ...the tightest writing is that in which anything but the absolute bare minimum needed to move the plot forward has been eliminated.



I think this is a hangup, actually:  The thought that only plot develops.  Or setting or characters.

The details can develop too.

Here's a line from a challenge entry I wrote about a nervous kid dressed as a vampire for halloween, waiting for the girl to trick or treat at his door:

_Tedd stood a little embarrassed. An old black sheet spread down his back like a cape, and ketchup smears highlighted two small marker dots on his neck._

Here's a follow up line when he finally talks to her:

_His neck felt cold and itched in the night breeze, and he rubbed it reflexively after tossing the candy into her bag. Andrea laughed at him. He had rubbed off the ketchup. His blood felt dry._

Sure, that's character development.  But it comes from developing the details.

I'm of the mind that every time you successfully make a new connection between your story elements, you increase the story's power.  And you can make those connections with the details, especially as they grow - I used this detail in an effort to help highlight the important moment of the story.

So I would argue that you create voice and maintain tightness by finding the right details, and then developing them to a point where they become relevant.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 6, 2013)

Devor said:


> So I would argue that you create voice and maintain tightness by finding the right details, and then developing them to a point where they become relevant.




I was going to disagree with this. I was going to argue that voice is in what details you chose to develop. I was also going to argue that tightness is something more technical, something separate from voice. Content vs presentation if you will. Then I thought a bit more about it and remembered what I posted in post #67, about how the voice could be found in little details such as what words you chose and in what order.
...and now I'm not so sure anymore.

I can definitely see how what details you chose to develop is a consequence of your voice though. I'm on board with that. Just as I think voice resides in the details, I also think that in order for a voice to be heard it needs to be maintained consequently and contribute to the greater whole (I'm a firm believe in that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts (except maybe in mathematics)). In that way, the things you chose to bring the reader's attention to are definitely part of your voice.

In the same scene you describe I might have chosen to focus on how the kids cape was too warm or chafed on his neck or something entirely different, but it would still have been the same event, just completely different.

I'm still pondering a good definition of tightness. I can't help but think that it's about eliminating anything that isn't needed, both from content and from sentences. It raises other questions though.



> ..the tightest writing is that in which anything but the absolute bare minimum needed to move the plot forward has been eliminated.


Mainly, what's needed to bring the plot forward?

"Frodo went to Mordor and tossed the ring into the volcano."
See, I've tightened up the entire Lord of the Rings to one sentence. That's what happens when you pull things to extremes. It's not much of a tale.
I guess tightness in itself is a balancing act. What's needed to bring the story forward and what isn't? What is the story about? What IS a story?

I think I'm getting the point someone (you Devor?) made about how tightness and voice aren't necessarily mutually exclusive though.


----------



## Penpilot (Nov 6, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> That the beginner who follows option 1 is going to progress faster and produce better initial works than the person who follows option 2.  I understand, however, that reasonable people (such as Steerpike) seem to disagree on this particular issue.



My personal experience was opposite to this. I wrote things for a long time, then I dove into every writing book I could find, learned every "rule" I could learn, and I zealously followed them to the letter. I thought I was getting better, but I was actually getting worse. I didn't now how to use the rules and my writing stunk up the joint. You might say that it was probably better than what I was writing before, but it wasn't. 

I was taking an editing course and each student brought part of a manuscript to the course to examine. I brought the novel I was currently working on and the short story that I based the novel on. The short story I wrote almost 20 years prior. The comments I got on the novel were that the prose was hard to engage with and seemed over worked, but the short story was much more engaging. They said that the short story's prose seemed more honest and much more easier to "get".

I did some examination and came to realize that I was instinctively doing certain things right before I dove head first into the rules-pool. We all have natural instincts that tell us if something works or not. Rules can create noise that drown out those instincts. As soon as I stopped being a zealot about the rules and let my gut take the driver's seat in guiding me, I got better and better. 

In hindsight, I think I would have been better off if I didn't know the rules until later on in my writing life. I would have gotten more done because I wouldn't have been spending time worrying about following the rules exactly and just wrote.

"Rules" can throw you in the wrong direction. They're important to learn and know, but they can be dangerous.

My analogy is carpentry. Each rule is a tool in the tool box. If you don't know how to used a tool properly, you may lose a few fingers. Best to avoid the dangerous tools until you're ready. How do you know when you're ready? I don't know. Maybe only after you've gained experience making tons of mistakes doing things your way, and only using the tools you naturally own, that you are ready. But again, I don't really know.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Nov 6, 2013)

See, if you were a carpenter, you'd learn from other carpenters--not abstractly, but directly and in detail. In this biz, everyone's afraid that will ruin their "authorial voice."

A little secret of mine:I didn't starty with a narrative voice of my own, so I wrote in Orson Scott Card's voice. I've learned a few more tricks, but it's still heavily Card-derived (arguably more so than the garbage Card writes now!) I learned what worked for him, I made it work for me, and I used it to tell stories Card wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. This mythical, mystical "authorial voice" doesn't have to be the thing you use to distinguish yourself with, not if you have a fresh perspective and untold stories!


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 6, 2013)

I'd so very much like to write in the style of Tove Jansson. It's carefree and whimsical and happy. I love reading it, but writing it doesn't quite suit my mentality. I guess I could try analysing it and copy things, but I worry I'll just be overly analytical and spoil the fun out of it. I'm trying to go for my own version of that same feel though.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 6, 2013)

First, I don't think there is anything wrong with emulating a writer's style. A lot can be gained from that effort as long as we don't hold ourselves responsible for producing the same level, or style. That's not likely to happen. Still, it can be a contributor, or inspiration, toward developing a unique voice.

Now....a tight writing definition. In my view, tight writing eschews unnecessary wordiness while also making an effort to say the same with less, or at least, more precise verbiage. 

There's certainly a different quality or feel to tight writing than one may get from a looser presentation, but I don't think it limits voice. Rather, it's a component of voice, a small variable, one of many that contribute to the overall feel. Considerations, like limiting adverbs & adjectives, is only one factor . Even that may not be pervasive for all writers who employ a tight style, like it is for mine. Pros that have been writing for a long time have difficulty defining voice for just this reason. Further, it could apply to an authors voice as much as an individual character voice.

For me, I've had the most success with writing tight. That doesn't mean I don't describe things in detail, or use more words at one time versus another. I do, but I try to do so for effect, to concentrate the readers attention or to shift them away. In my work, I feel I have more freedom of movement (to describe greater levels of detail when needed for effect) if the main body of work is tight and economic. 

That being said, there are plenty of brilliant stories I've read that fly in the face of the guidelines I've adopted for myself. Likewise, there are those who are much more consistently tight. Neither is right or wrong, it's just a sliver of the overall style. If the author tells the story well, and their chosen style is complimentary, or at the very least not an obstacle, then it's all well and good. When writing is noticeable, when it itself draws reader attention, then it becomes a hindrance....but that's not always even the case. That's a matter of style preference. There are occasions where the words themselves add a noticeable quality. Those are rare for my reading preference but it does happen. When it does, the effect can be magical.

In the end, as long as the story is interesting, all other factors can be pushed aside. Interesting...that's it. You know what can add interest? A great narrative voice. The sense of voice is the recognition of a unique storytelling quality. It can take a piece from good to great. It takes time to develop. 

One of the reasons I do like to discuss "rules for writing" is because they offer topics for us to experiment with. I believe that experimentation allows us to discern those elements that work for us each. We discard those that do not. We build upon those that do. If we are unwilling to hear those ideas, or work with them, how are we ever to understand their application? Will that hinder the development of our voice? Maybe, if our reluctance causes us to overlook or dismiss a tool outright. I'd rather consider a tool, and work with it, before casting judgment. If someone asks me for advice, I dig in my toolbox and show them the methods that are effective for me. Are there other tools available? Yes, most certainly. But, I do not have experience with them. Sure, I've tried them out, but they weren't the right tool for my job. You're better off seeking advice on those methods from another...or just trying them out yourself.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 6, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Now....a tight writing definition. In my view, tight writing eschews unnecessary wordiness while also making an effort to say the same with less, or at least, more precise verbiage.


The pieces are starting to fall into place. I think I've had a good feeling for what "tight writing" is all along, but having it put into words like this really does help.





T.Allen.Smith said:


> In the end, as long as the story is interesting, all other factors can be pushed aside. Interesting...that's it. You know what can add interest? A great narrative voice. The sense of voice is the recognition of a unique storytelling quality. It can take a piece from good to great. It takes time to develop.


I'd better get to work then.  



T.Allen.Smith said:


> One of the reasons I do like to discuss "rules for writing" is because they offer topics for us to experiment with. I believe that experimentation allows us to discern those elements that work for us each. We discard those that do not. We build upon those that do. If we are unwilling to hear those ideas, or work with them, how are we ever to understand there application? Will that hinder the development of our voice? Maybe, if our reluctance causes us to overlook or dismiss a tool outright. I'd rather consider a tool, and work with it, before casting judgment. If someone asks me for advice, I dig in my toolbox and show them the methods that are effective for me. Are there other tools available? Yes, most certainly. But, I do not have experience with them. Sure, I've tried them out, but they weren't the right tool for my job. Your better off seeking advice on those methods from another...or just trying them out yourself.



I support this.
I don't mind getting told about rules and things to do or not to do, but I do like to know why I should or shouldn't do something. Understanding the reason for the rules means I can make up my mind on whether to follow the recommendations or go my own way. Inexperience can and will cause me to make the wrong decision for the wrong reasons, but that's why I'm asking for feedback on things. Testing stuff out and checking it against the impressions of others has been a really great boost for me.

One of the people who's given me the most feedback here is Brian. His preferences are radically different from the style I'm writing, but he keeps giving me advice anyway. 
It's been extremely helpful.
Not because he's pointed out what I'm doing wrong or what rules I'm breaking, but because he's explained why. If I were to follow his advice I think my writing would be radically different. I'm not sure I even could do it if I tried. What I can do is understand the advice and the reason for it and I can apply that understanding to my own style.


I'm thinking that the main importance of the rules isn't what they tell us to write or not write, but what the reason for the rules tells us about how people read. If I understand how people perceive words, sentences and stories I can incorporate that into my writing and eventually learn produce a pleasant reading experience.


----------



## Jabrosky (Nov 6, 2013)

Malik said:


> I really do think, based on what I see in a lot of self-published fantasy and fiction, that there's a mass delusion among young writers that writing a best-selling novel is akin to becoming famous from posting a YouTube video. I really think it's symptomatic and generational to believe that you can be wildly successful without putting the hard, grinding, awful work in. But then, maybe I'm just old.


I believe there's more to that problem than mere laziness or short attention spans though. A major reason why a lot of young people in general want to achieve great success so quickly is because they're terrified of the alternative, which is a lifetime of grueling wage slavery. Most young people, even the ones who can afford college, have only so much time in their lives before they get kicked out of their parents' household and must fend for themselves in the larger world. Amassing a lot of fame and fortune in a short amount of time is practically the only way they can protect themselves from the predations of parasitic capitalists who lust for cheap labor. If they can make that money doing something creative, which is what most young people naturally enjoy anyway, so much the better.

I'd say that suffices to explain the problem of impatient young writers without putting down their attention spans or whatever.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 7, 2013)

> (This might also relate to what I write--emotion is very useful in erotica, and tension is often minimized.)



Considering that I've never even read 50 Shades, I'm not an expert in the genre.  Minimizing tension, however, seems counter to what I would think would be useful.  To me, tension is a big help in creating interest.  Even if you're driving interest through other means, wouldn't more interest be better?

This would be an interesting experiment:

1. Take an old story of yours, maybe one that didn't get a great response, and revise it.
2. In the revision, for each scene, give the POV character a well-defined goal, make sure there is opposition to that goal, and clearly indicate the consequences for the goal not being met.
3. Repost the story and see if it gets a better response.

If you ever have the inclination to do this, I'd love to know the results.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 7, 2013)

> In my view, tight writing eschews unnecessary wordiness while also making an effort to say the same with less, or at least, more precise verbiage.



As in all topics we discuss on this forum, definition is important.  If one perceives tight writing as, "Cut everything to the bare bones," I can see why they wouldn't buy into that.  Romeo and Juliet becomes: Guy meets girl, ending in death.

The key word in the definition is "unnecessary."



> Get rid of all of the words that aren't needed.



We can easily see that the "of" after "all" is completely superfluous.  In fact, what does "all the" add?  Not much.



> Get rid of words that aren't needed.



To me, the two sentences say the same thing, but the second accomplishes its purpose much more efficiently.  Stylistically, you can go even futher, though.  If you replace "get rid of" with "eliminate," does that work for your story and your intended audience?  Would your character use a word like "eliminate?"  Can we replace "that" aren't needed" with "unneeded" or "unnecessary?"  If it works for the style and mood and character, it's more efficient.  If your character wouldn't say such a thing, leave it.



> Eliminate unnecessary words.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 7, 2013)

> My analogy is carpentry. Each rule is a tool in the tool box. If you don't know how to used a tool properly, you may lose a few fingers. Best to avoid the dangerous tools until you're ready. How do you know when you're ready? I don't know. Maybe only after you've gained experience making tons of mistakes doing things your way, and only using the tools you naturally own, that you are ready. But again, I don't really know.



Here's the thing, though: if you see an apprentice carpenter screwing up, how do you help him?  The only think I can think of is to try to explain to him how to use the tools.  Seems to me like that's better than telling him, "Sorry, you have to figure it out on your own."


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 7, 2013)

> One of the people who's given me the most feedback here is Brian. His preferences are radically different from the style I'm writing, but he keeps giving me advice anyway.
> It's been extremely helpful.
> Not because he's pointed out what I'm doing wrong or what rules I'm breaking, but because he's explained why. If I were to follow his advice I think my writing would be radically different. I'm not sure I even could do it if I tried. What I can do is understand the advice and the reason for it and I can apply that understanding to my own style.



I think you have a fantastic attitude about learning.  You take in criticism, try to understand it, and apply what you find useful.  That's exactly what I feel you should be doing.  If you took all the advice you encountered and applied it blindly, it wouldn't help you at all.  

My goal is to help move you along your path in the best/quickest/easiest way possible.  The only way I know of to do that is to tell you, from my perspective, what you're doing wrong and why I think it's wrong and, sometimes, how I would do it to make it better.  I'm glad that's helping you!

EDIT: I think it's also important (and this is something I've learned from reading opposing viewpoints on this forum) to point out both the degree I think the problem is and whether I feel the problem is absolute or subjective. 

For example regarding a subjective issue, I have a definitive view on speech tags in that I feel that "said" is the best way to go.  When I critique someone, I'm going to mention it if they've used a tag other than "said."  However, I try to point out either that this is just my personal taste or point out the logical inconsistency they created in the instance without making the general statement.

If the work fails to engage me, I'll instead say definitively, "This is boring."  I'll go on to tell them that I see the problem as a lack of tension.

I hope those distinctions come through in my comments.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 7, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Here's the thing, though: if you see an apprentice carpenter screwing up, how do you help him?  The only think I can think of is to try to explain to him how to use the tools.  Seems to me like that's better than telling him, "Sorry, you have to figure it out on your own."



I like this analogy.

There are good carpenters and there are bad carpenters. Not all good carpenters do things the same way, but there _is_ some commonality. Two good carpenters might argue about how best to build a house, but each will build a solid house in their own way, using the tools they've learned.

I'm a very inexperienced carpenter. My dad was not very handy, he taught me how to make enough money to pay someone to fix your house for me. I'm a little more handy than that, but I acknowledge my inexperience, so, my brother in law helps me with home repairs. He bought this oscillating saw, amazing for doing small precision cuts! I would have used the reciprocating saw, which is good for rough cutting. He's got a ton of little techniques that make the work go well, the end result looks good. He's finished his own bathroom and done a lot of that kind of work.

I do the same thing when a new programmer is trying to write software. I show them "the ropes", how not to write shoddy software. Other software developers may disagree with my exact methods, but if they've also been at it for 20 years, we'll agree on *some* things, at the very least that one should follow *some* methods and guidelines. The problem with the young guys is they don't yet know which rules should be broken and when, so it is safer just to tell them to follow "the rules" _knowing_ that you don't have all the answers. But, you have *some* answers, and they work well enough.

When people come into a craft, there are varying degrees of skill people have learned, varying degrees of awareness of the complexity of details that will need to be learned. Some people can figure out much of this on their own, just by watching other carpenters. Some people need to be told that the nails with the heads on the wrong end aren't for the other side of the house, you can actually turn them around. Some people can only learn by building shoddy houses and then having an expert point out the weaknesses.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 7, 2013)

> Some people need to be told that the nails with the heads on the wrong end aren't for the other side of the house,



I laughed so hard at this!


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 7, 2013)

These analogies work great the more that carpentry is like fiction writing. If you view fiction writing in that way, then I can see having the approach that you take. I don't think it is much like carpentry, personally, and I don't think you're doing writers any favors by telling them, even when starting out, that there's one approach they need to follow. On the other hand, when teaching science or, presumably, carpentry, you might very well start in such a manner.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 7, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> These analogies work great the more that carpentry is like fiction writing. If you view fiction writing in that way, then I can see having the approach that you take. I don't think it is much like carpentry, personally, and I don't think you're doing writers any favors by telling them, even when starting out, that there's one approach they need to follow. On the other hand, when teaching science or, presumably, carpentry, you might very well start in such a manner.



What do you feel is the best way to help new writers?


----------



## Scribble (Nov 7, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> These analogies work great the more that carpentry is like fiction writing. If you view fiction writing in that way, then I can see having the approach that you take. I don't think it is much like carpentry, personally, and I don't think you're doing writers any favors by telling them, even when starting out, that there's one approach they need to follow. On the other hand, when teaching science or, presumably, carpentry, you might very well start in such a manner.



I appreciate the sentiment of what you are saying, but what do you do? Hold back the knowledge of what has worked for you? Is it helpful to tell them to just go ahead and throw words at a page and see if any of them stick, that nobody possesses any wisdom about how to do these things, just make it up as you go?

I don't want to see anyone's creativity crimped, but if you go seeking the company of writers... it is just a natural human behavior that questions will be asked and "wisdom" will be passed. We can stretch our brains to find any number of analogies to fit everyone's conception of writing, but we'll get back to the same thing:

New guy: I suck, how do I do this?
Old guy: Here's what works for me...


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 7, 2013)

Scribble said:


> I appreciate the sentiment of what you are saying, but what do you do? Hold back the knowledge of what has worked for you? Is it helpful to tell them to just go ahead and throw words at a page and see if any of them stick, that nobody possesses any wisdom about how to do these things, just make it up as you go?
> 
> I don't want to see anyone's creativity crimped, but if you go seeking the company of writers... it is just a natural human behavior that questions will be asked and "wisdom" will be passed. We can stretch our brains to find any number of analogies to fit everyone's conception of writing, but we'll get back to the same thing:
> 
> ...



Yeah, I think "here's what works for me" is exactly what you do, and then you make sure the beginner understands that what you're giving them are tools that they may or may not want to use (and if they use them, may want to use differently from you), depending on their own goal, the style of writing they want to engage in, and so on. You don't go to someone who is already unsure or self-conscious about their craft and tell them "Here's what you have to do, otherwise you're doing it wrong."


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 7, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> What do you feel is the best way to help new writers?



By telling them the truth. Which consists of knowledge of all of the tools available to them, as well as the knowledge that they should trust their instincts and be true to the story they want to tell, which may involve throwing any of the tools you just offered right out the window.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 7, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> "Here's what you have to do, otherwise you're doing it wrong."



Got it. 

I've learned to distrust certainty and avoid people with arrogant attitudes. It is, however, easy to misunderstand passion for arrogance, particularly in web space where we don't have the physical cues telling us that the person doesn't take themselves too seriously, while taking their work very seriously.

The good teacher makes it about the student, putting their best knowledge forward - allowing for the fact they may be wrong, the poor teacher makes it about their own self and how great they are at what they do.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 7, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> By telling them the truth. Which consists of knowledge of all of the tools available to them, as well as the knowledge that they should trust their instincts and be true to the story they want to tell, which may involve throwing any of the tools you just offered right out the window.



How do you possibly convey knowledge of all the tools available?  It's apparent when you look at a total beginner that they have no clue.  Even giving them simple information like, "This is boring because it lacks tension" and "You really need to show here because the telling just isn't working" is going to overwhelm them.  Do you really think saying, "Depending on what you're trying to accomplish, any one of 10,366,729,152.12 techniques might work.  Wait a second while I elaborate on each of them and include all the advantages and disadvantages of each."

Sometimes, you just need to tell the guy, "Dude, this is boring.  Ramp up the tension.  Here's how you do that:"

I get the impression you want me to tell them, "Well, while this is too boring for my taste, some writers have achieved engagement by adding tension.  You add tension this way:  If you don't like that method, perhaps explore the techniques found link and link.  Of course, some readers might interpret that this way, so maybe it would be better if you ____.  On the other hand,..."

How does that help anyone?  And, how would I have time to do anything other than make a single comment?


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 7, 2013)

Scribble said:


> The good teacher makes it about the student, putting their best knowledge forward - allowing for the fact they may be wrong, the poor teacher makes it about their own self and how great they are at what they do.



Yes. And keep in mind, too, that in fiction writing there really isn't a "wrong," there is only what is effective and what isn't, and that determination is highly subjective.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 7, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> How do you possibly convey knowledge of all the tools available?  It's apparent when you look at a total beginner that they have no clue.  Even giving them simple information like, "This is boring because it lacks tension" and "You really need to show here because the telling just isn't working" is going to overwhelm them.  Do you really think saying, "Depending on what you're trying to accomplish, any one of 10,366,729,152.12 techniques might work.  Wait a second while I elaborate on each of them and include all the advantages and disadvantages of each."
> 
> Sometimes, you just need to tell the guy, "Dude, this is boring.  Ramp up the tension.  Here's how you do that:"
> 
> ...



I think there are ways we can all help new writers without stifling their own style and creativity (and without engaging in the hyperbolic scenario you've illustrated above). I get that you want, for whatever reason, for there to be one way to write properly and for it to be the way you've deemed correct. We'll just have to disagree on that point. I think your advice is good for the type of work you're aiming for, but not everyone aims for the same thing (nor should they). If you present a certain style or approach as universal, you're doing more harm than good to a new writer who is still figuring out the personal aspects of their own writing.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 7, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> How do you possibly convey knowledge of all the tools available?  It's apparent when you look at a total beginner that they have no clue.  Even giving them simple information like, "This is boring because it lacks tension" and "You really need to show here because the telling just isn't working" is going to overwhelm them.  Do you really think saying, "Depending on what you're trying to accomplish, any one of 10,366,729,152.12 techniques might work.  Wait a second while I elaborate on each of them and include all the advantages and disadvantages of each."
> 
> Sometimes, you just need to tell the guy, "Dude, this is boring.  Ramp up the tension.  Here's how you do that:"
> 
> ...



I've spent years writing opinion pieces and every single time I do, I am aware that I also support the opposite argument - to a degree. You can't footnote every single thing you say with caveats and disclaimers. You have to hold an opinion and shove it out there. Some people will get that, some people will nitpick and think you are being an absolutist. If you are going to say something, just say it, and like the parable of the farmer - some seeds will land on fertile soil, some seeds will fall in the dust.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 7, 2013)

Scribble said:


> I've spent years writing opinion pieces and every single time I do, I am aware that I also support the opposite argument - to a degree. You can't footnote every single thing you say with caveats and disclaimers. You have to hold an opinion and shove it out there. Some people will get that, some people will nitpick and think you are being an absolutist. If you are going to say something, just say it, and like the parable of the farmer - some seeds will land on fertile soil, some seeds will fall in the dust.



Which is all well and good, but if someone comments and does take an opposing viewpoint, it doesn't make sense to get irritated by it, does it? The good thing about a discussion forum is the diversity of views. So if we all have different approaches to things, then those approaches are discussed and advocated for by their respective parties, and in the end there is a diversity of information presented. Win-win.


----------



## Ankari (Nov 7, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> How does that help anyone?  And, how would I have time to do anything other than make a single comment?



This is the crux of the problem. There are two ways of dispensing advice. The first is to only give feedback on what you've accepted to be true. This ishelpful to the person confident in his writing skills, can process such feedback and separate what works for his style and what doesn't. This kind of advise will damage raw writers, or writers lacking confidence in themselves. The result would be a confusion of his unformed voice, and the partially formed voice of another.

The second option is to understand what the novice writer is trying to accomplish. This will force you to accept techniques you may not be comfortable with,  but must acknowledge as his right of expression. Once you accept this,  advise within his parameters. 

The best question one can ask before dispensing such advice is "what are you trying to do?".


----------



## Feo Takahari (Nov 7, 2013)

An example of a comment I left on the story I'm beta reading:

"Before" is usually used when you're breaking the order of events, talking about something that happened prior to the events you're talking about. Even though this is past tense, you go through the events in order, so "next," "then," and other terms like that help present the idea that they're in order.

Am I stifling this author's creativity, preventing him from beforing as he wishes? Or am I giving him valuable advice on sentence construction? How am I supposed to tell? But I think the story's getting better, and I want to help with that.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 7, 2013)

This is one of those debates where I think both side have merit. It's seems relatively easy to simply tell someone who is seeking advice:

This is my opinion. You might find some tips valuable, some will not work for what you're trying to accomplish.

That's a mouthful of disclaimer though every time you dole out advice or suggestions.

Can't one simply say "This is only my opinion"?

To assume the person receiving critique doesn't understand the implication, is insulting to their intelligence.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 7, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> This is one of those debates where I think both side have merit. It's seems relatively easy to simply tell someone who is seeking advice:
> 
> This is my opinion. You might find some tips valuable, some will not work for what you're trying to accomplish.
> 
> ...



Exactly!

If you say, "this works for me, but might not for you," you're leaving the door open to them deciding not to follow the advice.

If, on the other hand, you say "this is the right way to do it," you're acting like what works for you must work for someone else... which isn't always true.

*Edited to add*: Please note, I practice what I preach.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 7, 2013)

Approaching critique in a suggestive manner is something that I've learned here, at Mythic Scribes. I'm not perfect by any means, and my responses are somewhat time sensitive when talking about a Showcase excerpt.

GeekDavid,
If you look at my critique of your Heretic's Challenge, you'll notice the language used includes a lot of "I suggest...", "You could...", "Wouldn't you think...", & "In my opinion..." statements. Does this effectively deliver the points while allowing for your freedom as an artist to choose? I'm just curious because I think being a good critique partner is a learned skill. People that give critique can grow when the writer gives them feedback. It works both ways & I've found that the best crit partners are those who've taken the time to understand one another. At the start though, it's a guessing game.

A personal example:
If you look way back when (guessing almost 2 years ago), I did a crit for Caged Maiden on a Showcase piece. Admittedly, the crit was forceful, basic, & quoting a lot of rules (those I adopted). I didn't really attempt to understand the piece, or her. Rather, I gave out advice stating "change this, cut this, and so on." Well, over the years she's become a crit partner I highly value. We understand each other's style and goals. When I do a crit for her it's far different than most I'd do on the showcase. There's much more attention to detail. I feel I have a grasp on what she needs, from me, as a crit partner. Do we always agree? No, but that's just fine. The intention to make the work better is what matters.

Conversely, if I'm advising someone new on the Showcase, I don't often have the time for that level of detail. Further, I don't know them or what they're going for. Still, my opinion might help. How I deliver that depends a lot on what I read and what I do know of the person. It varies from piece to piece. Some I'm more harsh & direct, others I'm more suggestive. Trying to gauge the personality and needs of a writer I don't really know is difficult. Sometimes I'm going to swing and miss, but I can guarantee two things:
1) I'm always trying to help
2) Given enough time and energy, crit work with individuals always gets better as we grow to understand one another.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 7, 2013)

> I get that you want, for whatever reason, for there to be one way to write properly and for it to be the way you've deemed correct.



Steerpike,

I understand that you feel this way, but it is absolutely not correct.  This is not my desire.

If I read a piece and think that it "works," I don't care how they accomplished it.  Note also that I even think sometimes that things work even though I don't personally like it.

Where the issue comes in is when the piece, imo, just doesn't work.  My answer is to tell the writer that it doesn't work and what I think needs to be done to fix it.

I feel that:

1. That's all I can really do.  Tell what I think the problem is and how it should be fixed.
2. It's the writer's responsibility to either take the advice or leave it.  I take absolutely no offense if the writer says, "that's not for me."

What I get from your comments is that you think I should take the time and effort to make sure that the writer understands that there are hundred other ways the writer might choose.  To me, this puts responsibility on me that rightfully belongs on the writer.  That's how I see the disagreement we're having, not the way you've stated it.


----------



## Penpilot (Nov 7, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Here's the thing, though: if you see an apprentice carpenter screwing up, how do you help him?  The only think I can think of is to try to explain to him how to use the tools.  Seems to me like that's better than telling him, "Sorry, you have to figure it out on your own."



Yes. But you don't try to teach them to use every tool at the same time. It's about knowing which tool to teach and when. Sometimes some people aren't ready for a tool.



BWFoster78 said:


> How do you possibly convey knowledge of all the tools available?  It's apparent when you look at a total beginner that they have no clue.  Even giving them simple information like, "This is boring because it lacks tension" and "You really need to show here because the telling just isn't working" is going to overwhelm them.  Do you really think saying, "Depending on what you're trying to accomplish, any one of 10,366,729,152.12 techniques might work.  Wait a second while I elaborate on each of them and include all the advantages and disadvantages of each."
> 
> Sometimes, you just need to tell the guy, "Dude, this is boring.  Ramp up the tension.  Here's how you do that:"



When I critique work, the first thing I try to do is find out what they want to achieve before I nudge them in any direction. Just recently in my writing group somebody submitted a short story, and my initial reaction was I wanted them to expand more, because everything was very brief and nothing was delved into deep enough. Then I found out they were writing to a 1500 word limit for a submission. That changed things. I instead suggested they chop a bunch of story elements and put the entire focus of the story on one particular part.

I always keep in mind that a the right piece of advice at the right time can be a great help, but also the wrong piece of advice at the wrong time can be detrimental. I prioritize big issues to small and sometimes I don't mention the small things because that can be counter productive. There's no use commenting about adverbs and passive sentence construction when they can't even put together a coherent story. That just distracts them from the more important things. When I critique, I don't look at it as my duty to solve every single thing that I think that is "wrong" with their piece. I focus on a handful of comments that will get the most mileage.


----------



## Devor (Nov 7, 2013)

Okay, here's the problem as I see it:  You can't treat everyone like a newb.  You should be a newb for like the first 50 hours of writing, and then you continue growing.

The rules that people talk about are good rules for a newb.  Snip, snip, tighten up, keep it plain and simple.  Any other rules _get complicated_, but eventually you have to get there.  Boot camp has to end, and the real learning process has to continue.

And in the advanced class, people don't learn from rules.  They learn from their peers.  The difference between Harvard and my Alma mater isn't the funding or the teachers or the curriculum.  It's the fellow students who go there, who set the bar, who live the example, who say things like "Yeah, we can do that," and "Why not think bigger?" when everyone else says "Let's trim to what's doable."

How do you write the epic?  How do you write with power?  How do you write to make readers go _"Wow!"_  These are things that you can learn, if you shake off the idea that you're only talking to beginners.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 8, 2013)

> How do you write the epic? How do you write with power? How do you write to make readers go "Wow!" These are things that you can learn, if you shake off the idea that you're only talking to beginners.



Devor,

I don't disagree with what you said at all.

Two issues:

1. The further from the fundamentals you get, it seems to me, the harder it is to discuss writing in general terms.  It seems like the best way to learn from peers is to have your peers critique your actual work.  There's a lot of this going on via email exchanges and, to a more limited extent, on the Showcase.  It seems to me that threads on the forum that attempt to discuss writing theory on a higher level don't have much success.  If you can figure out a way to facilitate that discussion, I'm all for it.

2. For me, the next level beyond talking about what the rules are is to talk about how the rules can be best applied.  When is it best to show versus tell?  How can you effectively break from tight writing to better your voice?  In my experience, however, these kind of threads don't seem to go well.


----------



## Ankari (Nov 8, 2013)

I would like to flip the argument around, put the burden on the advisor instead of the advised. I understand the need to train others in the current rules, but doesn't that mean that the advisor must master all of the rules him or herself? Wouldn't that include, as he is reading the sample story, the ability to see a broken rule, consider the intent, and judge it's success? Not the success as measured by the beta reader's mind, but by the intent of the author?

To me, a beta reader who wishes to offer criticism on a story must consider the voice the author is striving for (got this back on track!), judge whether the author has succeeded, and advise to the contrary if he has failed. As I see it, those who brandish rules are adepts repeating the words of the masters. A master, on the other hand, can look through the lens of the writer, judge his success at the story he's trying to write, and dispense advice accordingly.

This is something I'll have to work on. I know I've spewed rules in the past because they exist, and not because they helped the story.

Sorry folks!


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 9, 2013)

Ankari,

I disagree completely.

Feedback is a precious commodity.  Your missive above, to me, implies that one should not critique or offer advice unless they are experts in everything writing related.  As someone who values all feedback on my work, I couldn't be more against that concept.  I can get something out of just about any opinion on my writing.  Maybe you have no idea what I'm trying to accomplish, but you spewing some rule at me reveals at least one crucial piece of information: the piece in question didn't work.

Truthfully, it's not the beta reader's responsibility to determine the cause of the problem, but the writer's.  The best function of a beta reader is to point out that a problem exists.  Again as a writer, I enjoy suggestions.  You just might point me in a good direction that I never would have found on my own.  In the end, though, it's not your story.  It's mine.  I must decide what goes in it and how it is written and what rules I use.

As to the concept that the beta reader should try to interpret intent, that boggles my mind.  Really.

What value is it to me as a writer if a beta reader goes into the piece trying to interpret how I wanted to do something and then essentially grade on a curve to tell me if I accomplished it?  There are going to be as many interpretations of a piece as there are readers who read it.  I need to know how the piece is interpreted by others.  If I want to know if I accomplished what I wanted, the best person to judge that is me.


----------



## Ankari (Nov 9, 2013)

I can understand your point.

Here's mine. Most who follow that rules are detrimental to a writer's understanding of the art, state a writer can break rules if he knows the rule he is breaking.

Assuming that beta reading is done among peers, doesn't that, in essence, negate the need for a beta reader to point out a rule is broken? For the beta reader to be effective, doesn't s/he have to understand the rule enough to know why it was broken? If s/he understands the reason why a writer broke a rule, doesn't it make more sense to judge the efficiency of the intent?

One of the lessons I've acquired from hosting the Iron Pen Challenges (I'll be doing another one after NaNo) is that ever author has their own voice, their own phrasings and pacing. If I were to judge every entry to my preferences, there would be an obvious line of demarcation between who I award points to, and who I don't.

Besides, as beta readers, aren't we evolving as we critique? Isn't it possible to expand what you consider acceptable with each new example of different writing styles?

An example of this is Robert Jordan Vs Steven Erikson. They both have their distinct voice. They both have their way of using the English language to tell a story. An unforgiving beta reader who favors the (seemingly) disconnected plot, heavy ideas of Steven Erikson, may think Robert Jordan's writing "doesn't work".

But a true beta reader would never say that. To state that something "doesn't work" really means "this doesn't appeal to my style of story telling, nor would I buy this kind of story from a vendor had I come across it." Basically, you're giving a review of the final product, not the advise needed to see the author through to his vision. As you can see, authors can have different visions of how stories are told, but can both be successful.


----------



## psychotick (Nov 9, 2013)

Hi,

I'm with BWF on this. Beta readers aren't there to be experts. If they know something about writing etc that's good. But their function is really to represent the normal readers. If they don't understand something it's not a literary criticism. It's a simple statement - they don't understand something. And if they don't understand it then the chances are other readers won't. If they think the writings off or the voice strange, then the chances are that other readers will too. If you want literary expertise that's your editor's job.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 9, 2013)

> But a true beta reader would never say that. To state that something "doesn't work" really means "this doesn't appeal to my style of story telling, nor would I buy this kind of story from a vendor had I come across it." Basically, you're giving a review of the final product, not the advise needed to see the author through to his vision. As you can see, authors can have different visions of how stories are told, but can both be successful.



Maybe we're looking for different things out of beta reading.  I want to know, when you read it, what are the problem areas that you see.  I find this information useful because it's hard to see past what I intended when I wrote it to figure out all the possible ways that it could be interpreted.  I may think I've explained something completely when you read it and go, "Huh?"

Ultimately, the main thing I get out of you beta reading for me is: "This section didn't work for Ankari."

A lot of times you offer me advice.  Sometimes I find that advice extremely helpful and far superior to what I had.  In those cases, I incorporate it.  Other times, I completely disregard your opinion.  In those cases, it may be that:

1. I feel the issue was more your personal taste so there's not really a problem.
2. I feel that you've nailed that there is a problem but you didn't understand the root cause.
3. I feel that I have a better solution to the problem than the one you pointed out.

In all cases, I'm glad both that you pointed out the problem and that you've made a suggestion.  Again, it's my responsibility to make the ultimate determination of what goes in my novel, not my beta readers.



> Assuming that beta reading is done among peers, doesn't that, in essence, negate the need for a beta reader to point out a rule is broken? For the beta reader to be effective, doesn't s/he have to understand the rule enough to know why it was broken? If s/he understands the reason why a writer broke a rule, doesn't it make more sense to judge the efficiency of the intent?



I disagree.

One of the main reasons that beta reading is crucial, for me anyway, is that I am so close to my work.  I know exactly what effect I intended.  It's hard to separate how I wanted my work to be read from possible ways that the work can be read.  Also, at our level of skill, we know far, far less than everything there is to know.  I don't know about you, but I do stupid stuff all the time even when I know better and, again, I don't know nearly everything.

Sometimes, I need that kick in the pants to say, "Hey, idiot, what exactly were you doing there?"  What I don't need is my beta reader thinking, "Brian knows better than this.  He must be trying something here.  Maybe he's going for this technique.  Gotcha.  It's weird and distracting, but okay."  That does me no good whatsoever.  If you think I made a mistake, tell me!

All that being said, note that my approach to beta reading is:

1. Determine if it works (which, by my definition, means "am I interested in what I'm reading?)
2. If it does work, move on regardless of any rules being "broken."
3. If it doesn't work, try to determine why, imo, it doesn't work.

This is what I want my beta readers to do for me, and this is what I do for the people I read.

BTW, what the crap are you doing up so late?  It's 1am in FL.  I'm up way past my bedtime, and I'm in CA.

EDIT: Speaking of which, "Good night!"


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 9, 2013)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm with BWF on this. Beta readers aren't there to be experts. If they know something about writing etc that's good. But their function is really to represent the normal readers. If they don't understand something it's not a literary criticism. It's a simple statement - they don't understand something. And if they don't understand it then the chances are other readers won't. If they think the writings off or the voice strange, then the chances are that other readers will too. If you want literary expertise that's your editor's job.
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



Greg,

This is an excellent point.  It does seem like maybe Ankari is confusing the beta reader's job with the editor.


----------



## Ankari (Nov 9, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> BTW, what the crap are you doing up so late?  It's 1am in FL.  I'm up way past my bedtime, and I'm in CA.
> 
> EDIT: Speaking of which, "Good night!"



I'm up writing, of course. And Good night.

Back on topic.

Beta reading by peers is different from beta reading by a general audience. We don't talk about "rules" when discussing the general audience. They don't know them by name, and may not know the existence of some entirely. A good example is the adverb rule. As pointed out in the Glen Cook thread, he used plenty of them. I never noticed until I became more serious about writing.

If we are talking about opinions, then everything Greg and BWF is true. We're talking about the rules themselves, how we advise one another as peers, and how we hold ourselves to these standards.

With that in mind, reread my previous post.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Nov 9, 2013)

I'm a member of a writing club that allows a wide variety of stories. I brought in an erotica piece today, and they absolutely _shredded_ it. All the assumptions that come naturally in the sort of erotica I write, for the audience I normally write for, become bizarre or even creepy if shown to other audiences.

On the one hand, I could say that they didn't understand my vision. It might even be true. Were I to post the story today, most of the folks who read erotica wouldn't even notice the things they complained about. For the purposes of the majority of my audience, those flaws "don't exist."

But the authors who've inspired me, the authors I strive to emulate, weren't the ones who settled for "good enough." Even porn can be elevated to art--in some cases, I've even seen art-lovers fail to recognize that it was porn*--and I'm going to revise my story until it's good art as well as good porn. I believe that there will be readers who'll notice and appreciate the care I took, and even if they don't, I would still know it if I stopped trying.

You can't adopt everything someone advises. Some target markets don't play well with others. But just because someone isn't in your target market doesn't mean their advice doesn't hold meaning.

*I recently saw a game design website recommend _Saya no Uta_ as a gruesome but brilliant horror game. As a matter of fact, it's not even horror--it's a porn game for gore fetishists, in theory the lowest art imaginable. But it was created by Gen Urobuchi, who I believe is one of the most brilliant Japanese writers currently alive, and he did such a good job that even a mainstream critic with no idea of its origins thought it was great. _That_ is how to transcend your genre.


----------



## Devor (Nov 9, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> The further from the fundamentals you get, it seems to me, the harder it is to discuss writing in general terms.



Harder.  More challenging.  Absolutely.

We still need to do it.




> It seems like the best way to learn from peers is to have your peers critique your actual work.



I've worked with a lot of people with a lot of different backgrounds.  Process gets trumped trumped by attitude, every time.  If you go into a critique with a "beginner's mindset" or a "rules-focused" mindset, you're going to have trouble moving beyond it.

In my last post I mentioned the difference between Harvard and the college I went to, NYU.  I was part of a student group in college, and we got an email once from the corresponding group at Yale.  They wanted to organize simultaneous full-page ads across a dozen universities to try and catch national media attention.  I told the others in our group, and they all said "That's cool, but no way, we can't afford that."  So I responded to the guy from Yale, "Sorry, we just can't afford it."  His response? "We'll pay for it."

At NYU, student groups are given a budget.  At Yale, they aren't - they're expected to fundraise.  There are plenty of ways to make money fundraising at NYU - I mean, it's lower Manhattan.  But by comparison, there's very little drive to do it.  But at Yale, there's enough drive to fundraise for a national ad campaign.  Wow.

My point?  If you approach a critique with the wrong mindset, you're not going to bring your A-game.  Worse, you're not going to draw the A-game out of others.  You're going to be stuck in the we-can't-go-big, let's-just-hand-out-flyers-like-everyone-else zone.

If you want to grow, rules are the starting field, rules are the first month on the job, the place you want to move out of as fast as humanly possible.  They are a great starting place, but they will hold you back if you can't see past them.




> For me, the next level beyond talking about what the rules are is to talk about how the rules can be best applied.



What would be the benefit of learning rules without learning their application?  The idea that those are two different levels really unsettles me.


((edit))

I do want to qualify one thing, however.  I do think there is a difference between "rules" and "strategy."  I would say that "always build tension" is more of a strategy than a rule.  It's a guiding principle against which the little things get judged.  As such I would say it's a different category and not the kind of rule I was referring to.

But there are other strategies to consider.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 9, 2013)

> Beta reading by peers is different from beta reading by a general audience. We don't talk about "rules" when discussing the general audience. They don't know them by name, and may not know the existence of some entirely.



This is where our fundamental disagreement is.  I don't feel there is any difference between what I want out of a "peer" beta reader and any other kind.

I still just simply want to know, "In your opinion, did this work?"

For a "peer," I might ask that question in more detail and reference tension, character/story arcs, and pace, but, in the end, it's the same question.

The difference with a  peer is that the peer is better able to provide, sometimes, an accurate diagnosis of the underlying cause as to why the piece didn't work.

Look, when I read something, I'm going to have one of two reactions: 

1. It interested me.
2. It didn't interest me.

In the first case, I'll say something like, "I liked this, but I have some suggestions that I think would make the piece tighter or more tense or more clear or whatever."  In the second case, I'll say, "You completely failed to gain my interest.  This is why I think the piece didn't succeed."



> We're talking about the rules themselves, how we advise one another as peers, and how we hold ourselves to these standards.



Again, imo, the only reason to talk about the "rules" in as a beta reader is in reference to, "This is why I think this didn't work."


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 9, 2013)

> I've worked with a lot of people with a lot of different backgrounds. Process gets trumped trumped by attitude, every time. If you go into a critique with a "beginner's mindset" or a "rules-focused" mindset, you're going to have trouble moving beyond it.



Devor,

I'm having a little trouble understanding what problem you're trying to fix.

When I'm critiquing someone and there's a sentence with an adverb, here's my thought process:

1. If I feel it works, I make no comment b/c I probably didn't notice it in the first place.  I don't go through a piece counting adverbs.
2. If the adverb stands out to me, I try to determine why it stood out.
a. If the sentence reads the same without it, I say that and ask the author to consider deleting it.
b. If the adverb is a cop out for using better words, I say that.

I do these things because it's what I want my beta readers to do for me.  Whatever about my writing bothers them, I want to know about it.  Sometimes I'll change my piece based on that input.  Other times, I won't.  My decision, but I always appreciate the input.

Obviously, comments on tension and character and story are more important than a misused adverb.  That fact doesn't negate that I want to know if I've misused an adverb.

If someone I'm critiquing isn't interested in hearing about my opinion on their adverb usage, they can tell me so.  In that case, I can make the decision as to if it's productive for me to continue giving them feedback or not.



> What would be the benefit of learning rules without learning their application? The idea that those are two different levels really unsettles me.



At my first writer's group meeting, someone pointed out to me that I used "was" a lot.  Perhaps that was put across as, "You need to be more active in your writing."  I took it as, "Get rid of was."

I scoured the internet trying to understand how to write without using "was."

Eventually, I came to understand that choosing strong verbs is the important point.  The fact is that, when you tell someone what you feel they're doing wrong, you have limited power over how they interpret your advice.  For me, I don't regret the time I spent learning how to get rid of "was" in my writing; in the long run, I consider it time well spent.

My experience isn't universal, but, sometimes, you have to understand that there is a rule before you can understand what the rule's purpose is.

When I give advice on "was," I try to frame it as, "This sentence would be better if you chose a better verb."  I know, however, that, no matter how carefully I state it, this can easily be interpreted as, "Get rid of was."


----------



## Addison (Nov 9, 2013)

When I first began writing this was the biggest obstacle I had to face. It took a long time for me to find the right way to get through it and I have William Forrester {Played by Sean Connery} to help me through it. One sentence helped me break the wall; "First you write with the heart, and then with the head." Don't think about the words so much. If you find yourself spending five minutes trying to find the best way to write that paragraph or scratching your head at the dialogue tags, then you're writing with your head. All writing is about one thing-Passion! We write what we're passionate about, whether or not it's fantasy or even fiction. The first draft is pure passion. We're at our keyboards or paper and we're just letting our imagination take over. When it's done, and we put or Revisor hats on, that is when we write with our head. BUT you want to make sure that as you write with your head you don't accidentally delete something of your voice from your first writing. 

Passion is the voice, revising is the speech therapist. Not a lip-singer/writer.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 9, 2013)

Addison said:


> When I first began writing this was the biggest obstacle I had to face. It took a long time for me to find the right way to get through it and I have William Forrester {Played by Sean Connery} to help me through it. One sentence helped me break the wall; "First you write with the heart, and then with the head."  [...]



I think this is good advice. I've had a hunch lately that I'm being overly analytical when I write. I don't feel that it's exactly stifling my creativity. I'm still producing good text, but not as much of it as I used to. I'm writing slower, pondering things more and spending a lot more time thinking about what I'm putting down than I did before.

I guess that among all of the other exercises I plan to set for myself I'll put one about trying to "write with the heart", just let the words flow and then tidy it up later. I might enjoy it and I might not. It could work out or it could just make a mess of things. But it's worth trying.


----------



## Philip Overby (Nov 9, 2013)

I think Addison's point about writing with your heart and not your head is a good one. I've found that writing what just naturally flows out of me works for me leagues better than tinkering with every little word that may or may not work. I think voice emerges from that rawness. Then, when it comes time to edit, you temper the voice by adding here or taking away there. 

I have a friend that gave me some great advice recently. He said he read a study that talks about making lots of decisions every day can effect your ability to produce creatively. Basically, if every time you sit down for breakfast you say, "What am I going to eat?" you've wasted one of your important decisions for the day on something trivial. I think as a writer, we have to allow our decisions to naturally come out at first. When it comes time for an important plot point, that's when our minds should step in. Not when it comes to making miniscule decisions on whether to use "said" or "whispered." 

I find the more voice in a story, the better. I feel the difference between a novel with a strong voice and one without is the difference between reading a story and reading a newspaper report. The newspaper report may be written better or even give more valuable information, but the story is going to have more life to it because it has that "heart writing" in it.


----------



## Devor (Nov 9, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I'm having a little trouble understanding what problem you're trying to fix.
> 
> When I'm critiquing someone and there's a sentence with an adverb, here's my thought process . . . .
> 
> At my first writer's group meeting, someone pointed out to me that I used "was" a lot . . . .



I have a rubric that I put together for critiquing stories.  "Was" and "adverbs" aren't on the list.  "Tension" was one of three items under "Plot" - specifically, "do the scene's setups build tension?"  Another being, "Does the scene have a payoff which makes it worth including?"

Under language, I have a few items, but mainly:  "Does the language deliver on the emotion in the scene?"

Overusing was and adverbs are micro-elements of that much greater category.  I don't understand why anyone would want to spend so much time on them, *especially when they're discussed out of context of the question above*.  It strikes me as just avoiding the more difficult aspects of writing.


((edit))

My apologies for continuing the off-the-topic-of-voice elements of this conversation.  This is my last post here that isn't about the topic of Voice.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 9, 2013)

Devor said:


> What would be the benefit of learning rules without learning their application?  The idea that those are two different levels really unsettles me.



Yes, hiding the ball doesn't appeal to me. Further, if the person critiquing doesn't take the time to understand what the writer is trying to do, their critique isn't going to be as good as it could be, and might be completely off base. But an unsure, inexperienced writer might take it to heart regardless.


----------



## Devor (Nov 9, 2013)

Svrtnsse said:


> I was going to disagree with this. I was going to argue that voice is in what details you chose to develop. I was also going to argue that tightness is something more technical, something separate from voice. Content vs presentation if you will. Then I thought a bit more about it and remembered what I posted in post #67, about how the voice could be found in little details such as what words you chose and in what order.
> ...and now I'm not so sure anymore.



The conflict between voice and tightness comes from the way that tightness would have you cut many of the nuances that make up your voice.  For some people, that's not a problem, their voice comes out clearly in the throughline and they struggle with the excess.  For others, cutting the "excess" may cut out the life behind their voice, the places where it's strongest.

If you dissect your story elements deep enough, you'll find that there's much of your story that's "necessary" based on your overall goals.  I was trying to advocate how to include more detail while still maintaining tightness - by having the details evolve and change until they become relevant.  That gives you more content and more choice over what happens in your narrative, giving your voice greater room to show through.

For more on establishing your voice, I recommend an old article from the Mythic Scribes blog:

Finding Your Writer's Voice

Here's an excerpt:



			
				Dave Robinson said:
			
		

> #1: You already have Your Voice
> It’s in you, inherent and hardwired into your DNA. Every breathing moment – awake or asleep – has layered depth and breadth and scope to Your Voice. It rumbles like grinding continents, burns like lightning, and whispers like a child on Santa’s knee. It’s authentic and powerful and it’s yours.
> 
> #2: You don’t have to find Your Voice
> You don’t have to find Your Voice any more than you have to find your pancreas. All you have to do is understand it...



Almost by definition your author's "voice" is the one aspect of your writing that people can't really help with.  At best, someone who has read enough of your writing might be able to articulate a few patterns they've picked up on.  But there's no abstraction for figuring out that part of your writing that's distinctly you.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Nov 9, 2013)

> #1: You already have Your Voice
> It’s in you, inherent and hardwired into your DNA. Every breathing moment — awake or asleep — has layered depth and breadth and scope to Your Voice. It rumbles like grinding continents, burns like lightning, and whispers like a child on Santa’s knee. It’s authentic and powerful and it’s yours.
> 
> #2: You don’t have to find Your Voice
> You don’t have to find Your Voice any more than you have to find your pancreas. All you have to do is understand it...



I wonder if this would be perceived differently on a site for television scriptwriters. A good TV script is one that has the "voice" of the show itself, even if that voice was determined by someone other than you. Some of the worst episodes I've seen of shows I liked were scripted by writers who used their own voice rather than the show's voice.

(To get personal, there are stories right now that I simply _can't write_, because the voice I write in isn't suitable for telling those stories. I'm trying to learn other voices, so I can tell stories in those voices--I'm not sure whether I'll succeed, but I think it's worth the effort.)


----------



## Jabrosky (Nov 9, 2013)

Going back to the whole rules discussion, I don't think there's any disagreement here that the English language has certain conventions that every competent writer must acknowledge and respect, even if they defy those conventions once in a while. What I believe is causing the real tension here is confusion between genuine grammatical rules and stylistic preferences.

_Additional comments removed by moderator._


----------



## Ankari (Nov 9, 2013)

This debate was never meant to be specific. In fact, I am one of BWFoster's beta readers, and he is mine. I value his input, and continuously seek his feedback whenever I have something new. He has made me a better writer.

This is where BWFoster and I agree. In the end, it is up to the writer to determine whether the advice given is applicable to his style of writing. Writing is the freest form of expression. No one can make you do what you don't want to do.

My argument isn't meant to destroy conventional ways of beta reading, it's meant to have us consider our true understanding of our mastery, and whether we are capable of achieving the next level in our craft by doing exactly what Feo suggested. To b e able to understand the voice/narrative/tone/theme of another writer is an achievement that places an individual on another level. To be able to write in that voice/narrative/tone/theme is when someone becomes a master of the craft.

Let us return to the debate, and stay away from specifics.


----------



## Chessie (Nov 9, 2013)

Going back to the OP, I do think that although cleaner writing strengthens a piece, there is a chance to draw away from voice. Do I think of my voice as a writer when I'm typing my stories? Not really. I prefer style, which comes through in the setting, plot, characters, etc that I create. Stylistic choice seems the more defining term. Perhaps voice and style are the same thing to some people. Our styles can' t be taken away by cleaner writing, but they can be improved so others understand our intentions with story more clearly. Plus most of us here write fantasy so what we choose to put in our worlds and stories stand out.


----------



## Helen (Nov 10, 2013)

I haven't read the whole thread. I just hope someone's mentioned theme.



Svrtnsse said:


> _the more active and efficient your prose is, the less room there is for narrative voice_


_

I think it's the opposite. The more efficient, the more narrative voice._


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 10, 2013)

Helen said:


> I think it's the opposite. The more efficient, the more narrative voice.


It can go either way, I'd say, as long as there is consistency. Maybe that's what you meant by theme?

Efficient, lean writing can be one component of voice. The same could be said for a more elaborate style. Neither defines voice. They are merely additive bits of the greater whole.


----------



## Helen (Nov 10, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Maybe that's what you meant by theme?
> 
> Efficient, lean writing can be one component of voice. The same could be said for a more elaborate style. Neither defines voice.



Voice is a function of theme.

Language, action, everything is designed around theme.

The tighter it is, the more reflective of voice it will be.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 10, 2013)

Helen said:


> The tighter it is, the more reflective of voice it will be.



Are you saying tight writing leads to more voice?  

There are plenty of great writers who don't employ a tight writing style that certainly have distinctive voice.    

Don't get me wrong, I like tight writing. That's my preference as a writer but still, I don't see it as a requirement for a distinctive voice. If that were true, all great works of fiction would have been written with an economy of words. What we see in reality disproves that assumption.    

I don't know, maybe we're not understanding one another.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 10, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Are you saying tight writing leads to more voice?



I'm reading it that the tighter it is, the less is needed to reach a distinctive voice.

Whether that's what's meant or not it's still an interesting thought. If something is very slick and smooth, then even very small details will stand out and it may very well be that the same thing can be said to apply to writing.


----------



## Helen (Nov 11, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> What we see in reality disproves that assumption.



I think you have to be careful. Because nothing is ever on-the-nose. It's always off-the-nose. So you're dealing with reflections. It's not what we see, but what is being referenced.

I'd say what we see supports what I'm saying.



T.Allen.Smith said:


> Are you saying tight writing leads to more voice?



Not really. I'm not saying that all you have to do is write tightly and you'll automatically have voice.

To get to the bottom of it, we have to discuss how theme is executed. Which will lead us to the words that are chosen and their thematic purpose (which links us into "prose").

When it's done tightly, it will strongly reflect voice. When it's done loosely, it'll likely dilute voice.


----------

