# Rules-based versus organic writing



## Steerpike (Jun 28, 2017)

Continuing from the other thread:

1. Although the post title makes this sound like a binary issue, it isn't of course. There is a spectrum here.

2. As FifthView pointed out, the word "organic" is a bit fuzzy. As an attempt at clarification about what I mean, I'm thinking of almost an instinctual approach to any given story, based on the author's own vision of how the story can be told. I don't mean "instinctual" to imply that this is something one is born with or else lacks. It is certainly a learned skill. It's a process in which the story flows at some level apart from the formal analysis of much of the minutiae of the rules. 

3. An organic process doesn't preclude application of rules-based methodology, because after an organic writing process the editing process can include such considerations, but whether at the point of writing or editing my question, below, is whether this is always a good idea.

4. The comments here are not an indictment of any approach to writing. I enjoy thrillers, for example, and that's the genre I identify most with many of the rules I read about writing, whether from books on how to write best-selling fiction, or the types of discussions writers have in forums. Those are good books, and the techniques can be very effective. I enjoy them. But I don't want _all_ books to be like them.

The discussion has me thinking of three books as examples. I recently re-read _The Savage Detectives_, by Roberto Bolano. The other two examples are David Foster Wallace's _Infinite Jest_ and Mervyn Peake's _Gormenghast_ books. I read the DFW novel some time ago, so if my memory is hazier on that one someone can correct me. 

I don't think the books above, which are all well-received critically though none of them are what I would consider "commercial fiction" per se, adhere to a lot of the rules for writing or structuring novels that are often discussed among writers. Bolano's protagonist tends to get introspective, and the author engages in asides to indulge the character. Early on, these work to establish character, but as the book progresses they're really not much more than expressions of the author's individual style. I don't know that I'd say he uses microtensions on every page, for example (depending on how broadly one defines microtensions). He also "tells" a lot. DFW also engages in asides that don't really push the story itself forward much, if at all. They're witty and interesting asides, but they're very much the author pushing into the work and interrupting the story to some degree to inject a flavor of himself into the work. They're very much voice and style first, with other considerations secondary. And Peake, of course, is wordy and engages in indulgent descriptive paragraphs and other asides that contribute to the flavor and distinctiveness of the work. They're interesting. The writing is fascinating to read, in my view. But they're not the sorts of things that align themselves with a rules-based approach. I suspect if any of these authors were around today, as unknowns, and submitted their work for critique in a forum, they'd get a lot of "You can't do that because of rule X."

Each of the books above could be rewritten to conform with a lot of the rules that inform highly commercial fiction, but of course the works would be destroyed by this. They wouldn't exist--something else would be in their place. 

Discussions of subject matter like MRUs, microtensions, and various other informal rules to writing fiction are valuable because they add tools to the writer's toolbox. But in the end they're just tools--the writer has to be able to determine when and if to use them, and those determinations seem to me to be based in large part on the author's artistic vision of the work, and on what the author considers the purpose of the work. If the authors is writing a fast, summertime beach read, it seems to me that the techniques discussed are a lot more relevant than if you're Mervyn Peake writing _Titus Groan_. 

One question, then, is how such advice should be offered to new writers and in what sort of context, if any, should be built around the advice. I run into this with writers in my in-person critique group, where we have some writers in the very early stages of the craft. There are places where those writers appear to be trying to accomplish a result that I think would be helped by rule x, y, or z, and so I offer the advice as a possibility to consider for their next edit. We have one writer in particular who has a fairly distinctive style and is writing more in the vein of literary fiction. The problem he has right now is that his writing, voice, and approach to story is still quite rough, so that end product isn't nearly as effective as it could be. I would hate, however, to steer him heavily into rules-based thinking because the most promising core of what he's doing right now flies in the face of a lot of that, and if he edited his work to conform to such rules I think it would be the worse for it.

Finally, as clarification on the word "generic." I am using it simply in contract to an author with a distinctive voice and style. Much highly commercial fiction is generic in terms of voice. I like the books, but you could switch author X with author Y and no one would be the wiser. It seems to me the more individual authors are pushed toward utilizing the same rules, the same approaches, the same admonitions when it comes to revising their work and how sentences, scenes, and the like should be structured and worded, the more you push similarity as opposed to differences. It's unavoidable. The more authors adhere strictly to the same set of precepts, the more similar their work will be. Again, not necessarily a bad thing depending on what the authors are trying to accomplish, but not necessarily a good thing either, particularly when you consider the diversity of potential in fiction.

I think that covers the gist of my viewpoint. I'm sure I'll want to clarify or perhaps reconsider based on opposing viewpoints.


----------



## Telcontar (Jun 28, 2017)

For myself, it is very much "write organic, edit by rule." Or some measure of that. I rarely think about "the rules" while I'm actually writing, but I literally have a list of things to watch out for when I edit. Some of these are personal quirks which I require personal rules to counteract, such as the abuse of dashes. Others are more standard, like "show, don't tell." Either way, trying to pay attention to these extra rules while writing initially would slow me down horrendously, and I'm already a fairly slow writer.

I also might argue that most initial writing is organic, as the rules people pay attention all the time are really just the ones they've internalized so thoroughly that they come naturally.

As you've said, all writing is judged subjectively and there are some very popular writers of not-too-long-ago that have a style which would be panned were it introduced today, and plenty of contemporary writers who have achieved fame in spite of what we might charitably call 'a dearth of style.' No writer is universally loved or hated. So in helping new writers, I myself would probably stress that they themselves need to know what they want out of a project, or no amount of critique will make it feel correct. Their own desires need to be the guiding star. If you can please 6 out of 10 readers but don't know which 6 you _want_ to please you'll be pulled back and forth.

And if they don't know what they want yet? Keep reading, keep writing. Experiment until they find it. It's been awhile since I've actively critiqued other people's writing, so I'm rather rusty on the tutoring/mentoring side of it, though.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 28, 2017)

Telcontar said:


> For myself, it is very much "write organic, edit by rule." Or some measure of that. I rarely think about "the rules" while I'm actually writing, but I literally have a list of things to watch out for when I edit. Some of these are personal quirks which I require personal rules to counteract, such as the abuse of dashes. Others are more standard, like "show, don't tell." Either way, trying to pay attention to these extra rules while writing initially would slow me down horrendously, and I'm already a fairly slow writer.
> .



This is my strategy as well. I write fast and furious until I get to "The End" and then I get really nit-picky for editing, usually to the point of rewriting chapters many times, using one "filter" or another, be it MRU's, microtension, characterization, setting, theme, etc, until I'm happy with them.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 28, 2017)

Know the rules in order to break the rules... if they're even rules. I don't blame highly commercial mix and match author writing on any rules, there's the problem I see with the premise. Now, I can kind of blame the "short sentence" rule/suggestion, combined with "simple" which is something that irritates the crap out of me. But even then, I think this is more emulating the current writing of blockbuster writers than it is follwoing rules. Show don't tell is a literary rule created at the Iowa writer's workshop as I recall, or at lest highly promoted by.

MRUs and microtension specifically are not style "rules" and shouldn't contribute to generic.


----------



## Devor (Jun 28, 2017)

I find myself reading through this and having an intense dislike for the underlying premise.

The thing is, if a "rule" works for you, then you internalize, and it becomes part of your "instinctual" writing process.  The result is that my writing voice has it's own set of rules, a set of "learned instincts," which looks a bit like the official rules and a bit like its own thing.

What I mean is, a good part of your style comes from conscious decisions that you make about what you like and don't like about your writing, and also, constant efforts to discover these personalized rules.  I find the idea that two are separate to be kind of poor perspective for understanding the learning process.


----------



## Incanus (Jun 28, 2017)

Excellent post, Steerpike.  I agree with the premise wholeheartedly and find this viewpoint aligns very much with my own.  I can like ‘generic’ works, but for me to really love something, it needs to be distinctive and unique, an author staying true to their vision.

Of course, I want to know and understand all the ‘rules’, and I find most of them helpful most of the time.  If nothing else, they might force me to make a decision I may not have thought I needed to make.

But ultimately I’m the ‘boss’ of the story, and I make my decisions based on how well they support it.  The moment I deem a rule inappropriate in a given situation, I won’t hesitate to chuck it.  If you make the rules the boss, then it seems to me you’ve deferred responsibility.  For good or ill, my writing is going to have a good chunk of ‘me’ in it.

(Reading Mervyn Peake just blew my mind wide open.  I’d never seen anything like it before, and am certain I never will again.  A true original.  I hope to make a few more such discoveries.  I sometimes wonder what I would make of Infinite Jest.)


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 28, 2017)

Devor said:


> I find myself reading through this and having an intense dislike for the underlying premise.
> 
> The thing is, if a "rule" works for you, then you internalize, and it becomes part of your "instinctual" writing process.  The result is that my writing voice has it's own set of rules, a set of "learned instincts," which looks a bit like the official rules and a bit like its own thing.
> 
> What I mean is, a good part of your style comes from conscious decisions that you make about what you like and don't like about your writing, and also, constant efforts to discover these personalized rules.  I find the idea that two are separate to be kind of poor perspective for understanding the learning process.



I don't agree. At least, this doesn't reflect my process entirely, though there is some truth to it that applies just in terms of development as a writer. I suspect a lot of people approach the process differently than what you're suggesting here, which is why you see phrases like the old adage "Write drunk, edit sober." People are distinguishing between the artistic, flowing process of creation and going back with a more critical eye to make revisions. You see this same advice crop up from time to time in books on writing, or advice from writers, which is to simply write, get the words on the paper, and then go back after and do the editing (which includes applying the "rules" from one degree to another, not simply proofreading). If the rules process for a given writer were simply internalized and reflected in the organic creation process, none of the advice above would make much sense. The editing process would consist simply of proofreading the result of the organic writing, which already includes the internalized rules you're going to adopt as a writer, and maybe polishing some rough edges.

Not that this can't be how it works for some people, but it doesn't work that way for me and I don't believe I'm alone.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 28, 2017)

Telcontar said:


> For myself, it is very much "write organic, edit by rule." Or some measure of that. I rarely think about "the rules" while I'm actually writing, but I literally have a list of things to watch out for when I edit. Some of these are personal quirks which I require personal rules to counteract, such as the abuse of dashes. Others are more standard, like "show, don't tell." Either way, trying to pay attention to these extra rules while writing initially would slow me down horrendously, and I'm already a fairly slow writer.



This is probably closer to my approach, if I'm correct in assuming that by "edit by rule" you mean edit with the rules in mind, and not the rote application of them to the work. I keep good writing advice (i.e. "rules") in mind when I'm editing. In some situations, I might decide that I'm better off disregarding a particular rule, but the important thing is that they've been brought up for consideration during the editing process.

I do a fair amount of critiquing in my in-person groups--probably 5 or 6 stories a month on average--and my focus with new writers is to make sure they understand the value, and pitfalls, of the supposed rules. I don't believe in hiding the ball, or we'll tell you they're rules now and when you get better explain that they're really not. I like to put it all out there from the beginning.

I also agree with the experimenting aspect of what you've said. It is often important for new writers. Many start off by emulating favorite authors, until after trying a few different approaches they settle into what is more naturally their own style.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 28, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> This is my strategy as well. I write fast and furious until I get to "The End" and then I get really nit-picky for editing, usually to the point of rewriting chapters many times, using one "filter" or another, be it MRU's, microtension, characterization, setting, theme, etc, until I'm happy with them.



I do this as well, with the caveat that the edits have to fit my vision for the story. In other words, I'm not going to apply a rule to my writing just because it exists and some people advocate for it. I'll consider the rule and decide whether it should be applied. I think you're saying more or less the same here.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 28, 2017)

Incanus said:


> Excellent post, Steerpike.  I agree with the premise wholeheartedly and find this viewpoint aligns very much with my own.  I can like ‘generic’ works, but for me to really love something, it needs to be distinctive and unique, an author staying true to their vision.



Yes. I enjoy what I'm referring to a "generic" works, which is a comment on voice and not a knock on them. I read a lot of those books, and have great fun while I'm reading them. They're not books I think about weeks, months, or years later. The latter are occupied by authors that I feel have really differentiated themselves in terms of style, voice, something to say, etc. 

I agree that we're not likely to see another Peake anytime soon. Infinite Jest is an interesting novel. It's dense, but interesting, and quite funny at times.


----------



## Devor (Jun 28, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> I don't agree. At least, this doesn't reflect my process entirely, though there is some truth to it that applies just in terms of development as a writer. I suspect a lot of people approach the process differently than what you're suggesting here, which is why you see phrases like the old adage "Write drunk, edit sober." People are distinguishing between the artistic, flowing process of creation and going back with a more critical eye to make revisions. You see this same advice crop up from time to time in books on writing, or advice from writers, which is to simply write, get the words on the paper, and then go back after and do the editing (which includes applying the "rules" from one degree to another, not simply proofreading). If the rules process for a given writer were simply internalized and reflected in the organic creation process, none of the advice above would make much sense. The editing process would consist simply of proofreading the result of the organic writing, which already includes the internalized rules you're going to adopt as a writer, and maybe polishing some rough edges.



Yeah, I knew I didn't explain it well and it wasn't going to sit right with people.

Let's assume for a second that you have the scene mapped out in your head, and you write a first draft of a scene or a chapter, and on the structural level it looks exactly the way you want it to.  That is, let's shuffle the structural part of it aside as "other things equal."

Now there's a gap in the quality of the prose between what the first draft looks like, and what your final edit looks like.  How big is that gap?  As you get better and more experienced as a writer, the gap should close.  Editing is part of the learning process for developing your voice.  As you edit, you learn, you make decisions about what you like and don't like, and much of that should stick with you into your future writing.

That's because your voice is the end-goal of how you write your prose.  You're not editing into a vacuum trying to get each little word tweaked and ironed into some kind of super-perfection.  No, you're editing it into your style.  It's all a part of developing that voice.  And your voice can be translated, onto paper, if you had that special skill of being able to understand all the details of why you do the things you do - translated into a set of rules that work for you, and which you follow, by instinct when you write, and more consciously when you edit.


----------



## skip.knox (Jun 28, 2017)

I think I get it, Devor. I'm not aiming for an external target, I'm aiming for an internal one. I don't quite know what that is, and maybe it will always keep shifting on me, but becoming experienced as a writer means learning to recognize those inner rules, more than it is learning to adopt external ones.

Or, to quote Don Marquis, who is always quotable here a hundred years later

My heart has followed all my days
Something I cannot name


----------



## Penpilot (Jun 29, 2017)

When I first started writing, I pantsed everything. I was the classic case of many many hot starts trickling down to cold stops with very few stories finished. Then one day I decided to force myself to finish the damned novel I'd been working on since I was 20. Learned a lot but ended up pantsing a 275k bit of hot mess in many many ways. 

While writing my first novel I was also reading every book on writing I could get my hands on and listening to every writing podcast religiously. But even then, it wasn't enough to save that book, or at least it wasn't worth spending the time to save it at that time.

For my 2nd book, I created a decently detailed outline applying all the rules I could remember, and I tried to do the same while writing the first draft. Better results structurally, but I had to throw out the last half of the book, and I kind of ended up half-pantsing the new second half. I found it helped a lot that I had a solid structure to work with, but it took me till the third draft till I felt like I was finding the heart of what I wanted to say and how I wanted to say it. 

This led me down the road to the way I do things now. I outline broadly, and I pants most of the things within those bounds. But the outline is fluid and can change with my whims.

I use the rules, mostly structure wise, to direct and bound my creativity. To me it's like the sketch a painter does before they start putting paint to canvas. It shows the general shape things need to be in in order to get the desire result, but otherwise, I'm free to do as I please. But because I have that sketch, I understand better the consequences of each story choice I make.

To me, I felt it was very helpful to go from one extreme to the other. It showed me pros and cons to each side of things and helped me find a method that felt right to me, which is still a work in progress.

For example, I use scene sequel format to bound and direct my sections. I know what I need to accomplish by the end of the section, but how I go about getting it done and what other things get explored while doing it is for the most part pantsed out.


----------



## Gribba (Jun 29, 2017)

I recently figured out, or should I say accepted the fact that I am a discovery writer, I can not write with these rules in my head, not on a conscious level. 
I attempted to plan my current story and use all the right tools and rules... it only got in my way, I just could not seem to get any writing done, I got stuck.

For me the tools are something to consider, when I go back to the story and rewrite my story. But what I do is, I read my story out loud to myself, that helps me to find areas that are problematic and need my attention, then I put the tools and rules on the table and see if I can use any of them. 

I think we all have different ways to use the tools and how we see them benefiting or lessen the story we are working on and to me that is what makes each story unique, that I think, lets us keep our voice in our work.


----------



## Russ (Jun 29, 2017)

This is always an interesting discussion and there have been many insightful comments already made in the thread.  I will try not to duplicate any.

The first factor, to me, in how one approaches one's writing is what it the goal of what you are doing.  If you are trying to write commercial genre fiction, you should try and write it like commercial genre fiction.  If you are trying to write something else, approach it in the way the way that will get you to your goal.  That is not to say that you cannot write amazing unique and original fiction that is commercially successful, you can, but you need to have a goal in mind to choose the tools and routes to get there.

I very much agree with the comment earlier that you need to understand the rules to know how and when to break them.  And rules can mean so many different things.  "Rules" can be rules for good writing in general (show don't tell, less passive work, strong voice, the use of psychic distance,  etc) or rules can be accepted conventions for a genre.  Both have their value.  

Rules also give us a common language to help each other get better.   When I am critiquing someone else's work and I find something that is not working to my mind, the rules give me the language to quickly express to the writer what I think the problem is, and that usually also leads to at least basic ideas on how to fix that problem.  In that context the rules can be invaluable.

Now on a personal level I can tell you how the rules work for me.  Firstly I do try to internalize a lot of them to save myself editing later.  That tends to be on the "shorter is better", "no info dumps", "psychic distance" level.  I try to construct my sentences, paragraphs and scenes in accord with what I feel are good writing habits.

On the story side I am completely different.  Story, or plot, I write straight from my inspiration, in my belief of how to tell the story I want, and deliver on the theme I have chosen.  I only turn to the rules when that fails me.  So if I am writing along and hit a point in my book where I am not sure where the story should go, or what should happen next, etc, then I will turn to a rule (or my wife) to decide what should happen next.  So a rule can be like a handrail I use to pull myself up when I have fallen, but that I ignore until I stumble.

So I do think there is good value in learning the generally accepted conventions of good writing, good plotting etc.  After you have done that, what you do with those tools is premised on your goals and your personal style.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 29, 2017)

If one looks at Titus Groan, all you have to do is look at the first paragraph to see microtension at work. Or at least, working within how I define it. Peake's word choice creates it. The mean houses swarm like an epidemic. This is an example of taking an inanimate, a house, and giving it "action" it swarms. There is more of this, plus, you add in the sense of aging and crumbling with irregular roofs falling now and again, then topped off with the Tower of Flint standing as if (maybe) flipping off God. Hello. Microtension in description and nicely done. Rottcodd and Flay are all about microtension and little questions, implicit and explicit. Rottcodd's whole routine builds on the ingrained reader expectation that when presented with the routine, it will be broken, and we the readers wait for how. And then, you got it, the unusual appearance of Flay. An heir is born. Why did Flay tell Rottcodd? We even see the word multiple times: Change! We know it's coming, it isn't tension as often used in modern fiction, it's microtension. The first chapter is littered with it.

Also, Peake is a great example of using a rule: specifc/strong verbs. This "rule" not only helps create his "voice" it is building the microtension.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 29, 2017)

Devor said:


> Yeah, I knew I didn't explain it well and it wasn't going to sit right with people.
> 
> Let's assume for a second that you have the scene mapped out in your head, and you write a first draft of a scene or a chapter, and on the structural level it looks exactly the way you want it to.  That is, let's shuffle the structural part of it aside as "other things equal."
> 
> ...



Thanks for the follow-up. Sounds like I misread your initial post, and I don't think we're at odds here. If you're editing in a way that is consistent with developing your voice, then you're not really applying rules by rote, you're evaluating rules and other tools of writing, and deciding which ones work for your style and voice and which ones don't. This determination could very well vary between different works. As you become more experienced, and your style is more ingrained, you have to do less of this consciously. 

I agree with all of that, and I think it is an accurate description of my process. It is contrary to the notion that there are certain things one _must_ do in terms of microtension, MRUs, show v. tell, or any of a number of other "rules" that one is often presented with. Each of these is a tool of writing, and as with any tool it is up to the wielder to know when to use it and when to forego it.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 29, 2017)

Russ said:


> This is always an interesting discussion and there have been many insightful comments already made in the thread.  I will try not to duplicate any.
> 
> The first factor, to me, in how one approaches one's writing is what it the goal of what you are doing.  If you are trying to write commercial genre fiction, you should try and write it like commercial genre fiction.  If you are trying to write something else, approach it in the way the way that will get you to your goal.  That is not to say that you cannot write amazing unique and original fiction that is commercially successful, you can, but you need to have a goal in mind to choose the tools and routes to get there.
> 
> I very much agree with the comment earlier that you need to understand the rules to know how and when to break them.  And rules can mean so many different things.  "Rules" can be rules for good writing in general (show don't tell, less passive work, strong voice, the use of psychic distance,  etc) or rules can be accepted conventions for a genre.  Both have their value.



Yes. To the first point, it seems logical that the extent to which you apply "rules" for commercial genre fiction should depend on whether you are intending to write commercial genre fiction. Knowing the rules can only be helpful, so long as one understands their purpose and true nature (i.e. that they're not really rules). Then, as I said above, they become tools, and a larger selection of tools seems to me to be a positive thing. I've run across a few people who are rubbed the wrong way by people characterizing the "rules" as tools for consideration, however. I've seen critiques from such people filled with sentences like "you can't do that."


----------



## FifthView (Jun 29, 2017)

Dwight V. Swain first presented the idea of MRUs in his book _Techniques of the Selling Writer_, and I think that word is better than _rules_ or even _guidelines_.

_Rules_ and _guidelines_ might work somewhat if we use the meaning of a pattern, measurement, etc. that can help us create the shape of what we write, but the problem is that _rules_ especially is being used in a squishy way to imply some kind of authoritative dictate. _Guideline_ is only slightly less authoritative.

_Techniques_ removes those connotations.

Here's what Swain says in the forward to that book:

Since they're primarily tools, these techniques have little bearing on literary quality or the lack of it. No writer uses all of them. No writer can avoid using some of them. How well they serve will depend on you yourself.​
I rather like the idea of thinking of those "rules" as techniques. One simply _follows_ a rule, to the best of his or her ability—or, doesn't—but one can learn to _use_ techniques.

I've been extremely skeptical of the way the concept "organic writing" is used, because I think that internalization of techniques happens before that instinctive writing can happen.

When are these internalized? Almost from birth. Children mimic and learn to watch a parent's reaction, eventually learning how to perform in a way that will elicit the desired result. When they're older, they may tell cute stories to please their parents—or lies woven to deceive. When they go off to school, they meet a great variety of other persons and learn new ways to achieve something desirable through communication. This is an ongoing process.

Growing up, in addition to the stories they themselves tell, they hear the stories others tell. They tell jokes and have jokes told to them. They also watch television and movies and, eventually, begin reading books. Why is this advice often given to new writers: read, read, read! The difference between this lifelong process and the kinds of threads that happen here is that there's no narrator standing by annotating the television show, movie, or book with "Microtension. Tension. MRU. Hook. Promise. Cliffhanger." (Any friend who did this during my first viewing of a movie in a theater might not be my friend for long, heh.)

When I read about the instinctive nature of "organic writing," I think it's what arises from all this _un_annotated learning. We've internalize these techniques, but often in a way that focuses on the results rather than the process. I remember an event in high school when this kid—term used loosely; we were the same age—learned I liked to write and insisted on showing me the sci-fi, action movie script he'd been working on. He was extremely excited by it. I read it, and it was 99.9% cliche, horrible. I didn't analyze it by thinking about all the techniques, I just recognized everything in it from all the movies I'd watched in the genre. He was reinventing the wheel. This is one result of learning techniques by only looking at the end results, imo.

A more recent example. I've been watching the first season of _Supernatural_, an extremely formulaic show I'd only watched a few times sporadically years ago. But it's entertaining, and I find myself somewhat hooked. In the prologue scene of one episode, we are shown how some stranger is yanked under a car by some apparently supernatural thing. Later, one of the two brothers (who are the MCs) is in a bar parking lot alone and hears something moving under cars. He sets his journal down, slowly bends down to look under the car, and I'm like, "OMG is this primary character going to fall victim, be taken?!" Usually, it's other people in these episodes who are the victims. When his eyes finally reach that level under the car, a cat hisses. And I jumped. Immediately afterward, I thought, "OMG that's the Cat"—seen it a hundred times—and immediately after _that_, I thought, "But hell, it got me!"

I think that the greater number of techniques learned, and _understood_, the more flexibility a new writer will have in finding/building her voice. 

But the problem is that these techniques are devices that create specific effects, and they are extremely contextual. Each may be used in a multitude of ways. During that other discussion, I pondered suggesting that we make a list of _all_ the ways microtension could be created—but then my mind rebelled because I thought there'd be too many, and any examples we gave would imply that only a handful of uses exist. This is the teen seeing a cat used under a car—or in a basement—who always after uses The Cat in that same, exact way, and even worse, _always_ uses a cat for those scenes.

Icanus mentioned daytime soap operas in the other thread, I believe in relation to the use of microtension. I think that, yes, microtension can be used to create that kind of story delivery. But it can be used in other ways, too, for many types of story. Or for a single scene. I gave some examples of MRUs, but I don't think those examples are the sum total of types of sentences and paragraphs that create MRUs.

When new writers only catch a few "results" of these techniques and focus on a handful of examples, believing them to be the sum total of the usefulness, and then translate these into "rules"—I think you can guess the result. Maybe the advice to "write organically," or without a conscious focus on these things, might be better for such a writer. But on the other hand, we might end up with a script like that script my high school acquaintance handed me.


----------



## Devor (Jun 29, 2017)

FifthView said:


> I've been extremely skeptical of the way the concept "organic writing" is used, because I think that internalization of techniques happens before that instinctive writing can happen.



I think that's the issue I had with the wording in the OP as well. Just like there's something off about the word rules, I think there's something about the word organic that isn't sitting right with me.  It's true that while you write you might not be focusing too much effort into your prose.  But you still have these techniques that you've developed that you should be using even if you're not thinking too much about them.  It should be getting to be second nature to use some of your writing techniques during the first go around.

Organic, to me, feels like something's happening all on its own, without any deliberate input from you, like you're spitting out prose at random just to clean it up later.  That's just not what's happening.

Of course, that's probably an extreme characterization of what Steerpike meant to imply.  And it's true that some people might have a harder time finding their voice and adapting their techniques on the fly.  And all the other disclaimers about finding what works for you apply here.  But broadly speaking you should come to even your first drafts with some bundle of skills you've developed and techniques you're already employing from the outset.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 29, 2017)

Technique is the perfect word. everyone will choose to use them in different ways for different ends, or not use them at all. What I don't understand is why the discussion of their uses seems to get so many hackles up, as if increasing ones repertoire is a negative thing which should be avoided?


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 29, 2017)

Devor said:


> I think that's the issue I had with the wording in the OP as well. Just like there's something off about the word rules, I think there's something about the word organic that isn't sitting right with me.  It's true that while you write you might not be focusing too much effort into your prose.  But you still have these techniques that you've developed that you should be using even if you're not thinking too much about them.  It should be getting to be second nature to use some of your writing techniques during the first go around.



Definitional question: once it becomes second nature and you don't have to think about it, isn't it then part of your organic process?


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 29, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> What I don't understand is why the discussion of their uses seems to get so many hackles up, as if increasing ones repertoire is a negative thing which should be avoided?



It's the way in which the discussion of their use is presented that I think has this affect. It is very prescriptive, often, which is a mistake, and people react to that.


----------



## Devor (Jun 29, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Technique is the perfect word. everyone will choose to use them in different ways for different ends, or not use them at all. What I don't understand is why the discussion of their uses seems to get so many hackles up, as if increasing ones repertoire is a negative thing which should be avoided?



I wasn't following the thread that lead to this one, so I can't really say.  But the "rules" lead to a lot of amateur critiques.  If you look around the greater online writing community, and even here in the showcase, I think it's a huge problem.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 29, 2017)

FifthView said:


> Dwight V. Swain first presented the idea of MRUs in his book _Techniques of the Selling Writer_, and I think that word is better than _rules_ or even _guidelines_.
> 
> _Rules_ and _guidelines_ might work somewhat if we use the meaning of a pattern, measurement, etc. that can help us create the shape of what we write, but the problem is that _rules_ especially is being used in a squishy way to imply some kind of authoritative dictate. _Guideline_ is only slightly less authoritative.
> 
> ...


​
"Techniques" is a much better word than either rule or guideline. And I like the quote by Swain, which is at odds with the advice that if you want to produce something of quality you must employ x, y, or z. Going back to the admonition to have microtensions on every page, if I understand Swain correctly he's saying whether you follow advice like that or not doesn't necessarily impact the literary quality of the resulting work.


----------



## Devor (Jun 29, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Definitional question: once it becomes second nature and you don't have to think about it, isn't it then part of your organic process?



Probably, if we're getting going to formalize things.  But it's not how I hear the word.  And regardless of whether we agree or disagree or whatever else, it's something that I feel needs to be a stated part of the conversation to do it any justice.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 29, 2017)

Devor said:


> Probably, if we're getting going to formalize things.  But it's not how I hear the word.  And regardless of whether we agree or disagree or whatever else, it's something that I feel needs to be a stated part of the conversation to do it any justice.



Sounds like we use the term a little differently, and I'm not sure either is right or wrong in this context. To me, organic writing is sitting down with a vision of the story in mind and just writing without much conscious thought as to the technical aspects. Certainly the unconscious mind is still at work when you're writing that way, and the output of Lee Child's organic process is going to look a lot different, and a lot better, than the organic output of someone who is just putting pen to paper for the first time.


----------



## Russ (Jun 29, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> I've run across a few people who are rubbed the wrong way by people characterizing the "rules" as tools for consideration, however. I've seen critiques from such people filled with sentences like "you can't do that."



That is unfortunate.  I have friends who are top notch writing teachers, and have their own sets of rules they teach to serious acclaim, but even they say up front that all rules can be broken at the right time for the right reason.  Of course you should always consider the source of the critique in deciding how much weight you are going to give to it.

The other side of the coin is problematic as well, when people who apparently want to sell their work traditionally like to say the rules don't apply to them etc and make excuses for weakness in their work.  I was talking to a very senior agent not along go about how frustrating he finds it dealing with young authors who won't take guidance, or don't take it well.  Apparently they like to say to him "Well [insert name of legendary author here] did it, so I can do it and sell."  To which he replies either "Well X was writing 50 years ago and we don't do it that way any more" or (my personal favourite) "What you are doing is copying the stuff that X does poorly, but the rest of your writing is not as great at X's to carry that handicap."


----------



## Devor (Jun 29, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Sounds like we use the term a little differently . . .



So to kind of progress the conversation a little . . . 

If I were to characterize the discussion right now, I would say it had two parts:

1)  How much do you use formal writing techniques when developing your style?

2)  How much do you focus on your prose while writing versus editing?

For the first part, to some degree I think it makes for each writer to spend some time thinking about each of the rules, and making some effort to apply them to their writing, one at a time, to better make those decisions for themselves.  Something like "microtension" may be broad enough to say there's a million ways to use it.  Something like "Show don't tell" may need a little more nuanced, "well, I can tell, and that works better for me if I put the telling in a character's dialogue...."

And for the second, I think 2nd drafts, and writing exercises, are a better place to focus on exploring your techniques than the first draft of your work, where you have other things to focus on. But for me personally, I have real trouble writing "bad" prose.  I have to produce something that's either decent or better, or I can't make myself type, and I just have to embrace that.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 29, 2017)

Devor said:


> I wasn't following the thread that lead to this one, so I can't really say.  But the "rules" lead to a lot of amateur critiques.  If you look around the greater online writing community, and even here in the showcase, I think it's a huge problem.



I may need clarification on this point. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is that not the point of these forums? Of the brainstorming, world building, showcase, and writing challenge boards? Don't most of the posts start with "Critique my.... insert world, backstory, prologue, chapter segment, story entry here." 

And are we not all, or at least most of us, amateurs, looking for feedback and giving feedback? 

I'm confused about this.


----------



## Devor (Jun 29, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> I may need clarification on this point. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is that not the point of these forums? Of the brainstorming, world building, showcase, and writing challenge boards? Don't most of the posts start with "Critique my.... insert world, backstory, prologue, chapter segment, story entry here."
> 
> And are we not all, or at least most of us, amateurs, looking for feedback and giving feedback?
> 
> I'm confused about this.



Okay, in this particular case I was using "amateur" as kind of an understatement / euphemism for "garbage."  There's a lot of people who develop critiques from some book they read or advice they heard, but they never received any advice on how to give a good critique.  So they jump down people's throats shouting off rules without paying any attention to what the writer is actually trying to do the with their prose in the first place.

The worst, in my opinion, is when a writer needs help with fundamental things like plotting and character, but ends up "defending" and bickering about whether or not "he was standing" is using the passive voice until we all just want to gag.

That is, the rules can be kind of a "black herring" for critiques.  Like a red herring, but dark.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 29, 2017)

Got it. This is true. 

But so does that mean we should never talk about the techniques? Because in my opinion it means we should talk about them more. If someone has heard "start with a great hook" and they think it means "start with a car chase or explosion" and that it means you can ONLY start that way, then that is a problem and is something that should be discussed. The last thread was about just this... all the different possibilities of what a "hook" could be, and how they work and when and why you might want to use them. It got as abstract as how something as simple as humour can work as a hook. That is hardly prescriptive. And yet it still raises hackles.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 29, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Got it. This is true.
> 
> But so does that mean we should never talk about the techniques? Because in my opinion it means we should talk about them more. If someone has heard "start with a great hook" and they think it means "start with a car chase or explosion" and that it means you can ONLY start that way, then that is a problem and is something that should be discussed. The last thread was about just this... all the different possibilities of what a "hook" could be, and how they work and when and why you might want to use them. It got as abstract as how something as simple as humour can work as a hook. That is hardly prescriptive. And yet it still raises hackles.



I think we should talk about them--including the advantages and limitations of each technique, etc. I think what Devor is talking about is a critique that just parrots these sorts of things without any real analysis or understanding. One of the most common versions of this I see from new writers is simply repeating "show don't tell." It's an easy statement to use as a throw-away in a critique. It can be valuable, if made with consideration, but it's not worth a lot if the critiquer isn't looking at what the author is trying to accomplish, and whether showing as opposed to telling is the best approach given the particular context. 

I say discuss techniques, bring them up in critiques, &c., but do so in a considered manner, and even when you think the application of a given technique is the best approach try to be be overly prescriptive in terms of how you present it.


----------



## Devor (Jun 29, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> But so does that mean we should never talk about the techniques? Because in my opinion it means we should talk about them more. If someone has heard "start with a great hook" and they think it means "start with a car chase or explosion" and that it means you can ONLY start that way, then that is a problem and is something that should be discussed.



Ohh, I totally agree.  In fact I think we should maybe even put together our own "Mythic Scribe jargon glossary" for these things so we can get on the same page with these terms and stop rehashing them so much.  And like you said, that's not just for people who are like, "I don't know what a Hook is," or "I don't want to use a Hook," but for those people who make it completely too rigid, which is more harmful because it stymies other writers - especially when those other writers don't have the same resource on hand to have any idea what you're talking about.

But in the meantime, we have to rehash this strange meta-battle over rules every now and again, although it's been a while since the last one.


----------



## Russ (Jun 29, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> I say discuss techniques, bring them up in critiques, &c., but do so in a considered manner, and even when you think the application of a given technique is the best approach try to be be overly prescriptive in terms of how you present it.



As a Canadian I think we should do everything in a considered manner.

However, when you go on the old inter web, to a site like this one or similar ones, you are going to expose yourself to many different experience levels, personalities and skill sets.  Which has its pros and its cons.  But some people have only read one book on writing, or learned a couple of lessons on technique.  I think they need to feel important and part of the discussion despite the fact that they have never had any advice or training on delivering a good technique.

It strikes me that both Devor and Steerpike yearn for a place where they are surrounded by experienced critiquers who all deliver well thought out and helpful techniques.  Such places exist.  This ain't one of them.  

The solution to the problem that both Devor and Steerpike seem faced with is to join high quality critique groups with carefully selected members.  I commend that experience to anyone.  

Or perhaps someone can get rich selling online classes on how to critique.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 29, 2017)

Show don't tell is thrown around way too much by people who don't know what the hell they're talking about, no doubt about that, as well as the dreaded "passive". And many times inaccurately. But it when it comes to critiquing writing I'm not going to go into a discussion of techniques, I'm going to say what IMO is lacking or off in the writing. If I say "on the nose", "talking heads", or whatever, it's up to the writer to figure these things out (or ask me what the hell I mean) and decide for themselves. 

I've even seen a pro give an example of show don't tell where the show I considered to be more "telling with style" than real showing (To rip-off Woody from Toy Story). And that's how he taught writing at a prestigious writing institution too. Who the hell knows. 

Of course, I also loathe pussyfooting around or long explanations for why something doesn't work for the reader. Just say it and move on for crying out-loud. Give an example? Sure, but do it and move on.

Many times when critiquing I will say something to the effect of: I don't care if you do what I say, but do think about it. Other than that, I'm blunt. Most of the time, heh heh.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 29, 2017)

As a barbarian, raw brutality is highly educational. Some of the best lessons learned are served up by bleeding and/or howling in pain... Oh, that's why mum told me not to touch the stove! 

What is also very educational is that at some point you must learn to ignore the noise and figure out what the real problem is, LOL. And, in any case, it's far more real world than a critique group. Not that I wouldn't like a great critique group, but I've never encountered one.



Russ said:


> As a Canadian I think we should do everything in a considered manner.
> 
> However, when you go on the old inter web, to a site like this one or similar ones, you are going to expose yourself to many different experience levels, personalities and skill sets.  Which has its pros and its cons.  But some people have only read one book on writing, or learned a couple of lessons on technique.  I think they need to feel important and part of the discussion despite the fact that they have never had any advice or training on delivering a good technique.
> 
> ...


----------



## Aurora (Jun 29, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Show don't tell is thrown around way too much by people who don't know what the hell they're talking about, no doubt about that, as well as the dreaded "passive". And many times inaccurately.


Can I make a quick comment on this? I'm currently reading this: The Champagne Queen and the first chapter is entirely tell. Yet I love it because she's swept me into her world just telling me a story. The way it's written, I'd say that most critiquers would label her style telling and tell her to rewrite it. But it works just fine as is, and it's a beautiful novel. 

I don't have much to add to this lengthy conversation except to say that I still don't know what an MRU is. It sounds like a military meal of some sort. I do think about the other things mentioned, which I hesitate to label as rules because there really are no rules in writing except to entertain the reader. 

In a way, my understanding of why folks discuss these techniques is clearer to me now that I've had some time to think about it. In no way did I intend to be disrespectful in the other thread. Everyone has their level of where they're at and these concepts are mostly new to me. I've never read Maas. I've read Coyne and James Scott Bell and other wonderful authors who write craft books. I apply what I learn to my books, learn from my editor(s), beta readers, and other writers I work with. This, in part, is why I agree with Devor who mentioned that we adopt these methods and apply them to our work thus making it intuitive. If anything, deeper study of craft has allowed me to:
a) add new methods to my work
b) understand what I was already doing and improve it.


----------



## Russ (Jun 29, 2017)

Aurora said:


> I don't have much to add to this lengthy conversation except to say that I still don't know what an MRU is. It sounds like a military meal of some sort. I do think about the other things mentioned, which I hesitate to label as rules because there really are no rules in writing except to entertain the reader.



That is exactly what I was thinking...MRE...when I first saw that.

Anyways it stands for Motivation-Reaction Unit if I recall correctly.  Which basically means your writing is clearer if you put the cause before its effect.  The idea has been around in different forms for quite some time.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 29, 2017)

This thread is moving way fast...

Anyway, I'll try and reiterate what I wrote in the other thread (and in others before that), and I think this is sort of similar to what Devor said early on - but perhaps from a different angle.

Let's say the goal is to write my story in such a way that my intended audience enjoys the experience of reading it. To achieve this I need to understand what makes a story enjoyable to read. I then need to put that understanding to use to the best of my ability.
Unfortunately, I was not born with an intuitive understanding of what makes stories enjoyable. I just know when I enjoy a story and when I don't, and I've never really put much thought into why - until recently (last handful of years).

This is where the rules/techniques/tools come into play. They're shortcuts to understanding.
They're like little pre-made bricks of canned understanding that you can use until you figure out how to create your own custom building blocks.

When I started out, I quickly learned that I'm supposed to show and not tell, but it took a while before I figured out what the difference was.
Eventually I also figured out the reason for why showing is supposed to be preferable to telling. 
This understanding helps me in my writing because I'm no longer following a rule. I'm just going with what feels right based on my understanding of how readers take in and process information.

That sounds awfully pretentious doesn't it?

Anyway...
Rules are good like that, but it's also really important to approach them in the right way. Others have touched upon that earlier in the thread. Don't just slam the rules down onto people. Don't just blindly follow rules. 

Another example.
For a long time I've been struggling with storytelling. I quite recently learned just how important reader expectations are, and why they have to be taken into account. It wasn't until just the other day, in another thread where the concept of making a promise to the reader came up that things finally clicked. The pieces fell into place and I felt a bit like I'd just leveled up my storytelling skills. 
I've known about the rule, and I've been thinking of how to apply it to my writing, but it's not until just now that I think I'll finally be able to do that in an intuitive way.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 29, 2017)

Oh, and thanks for explaining what MRU is.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 29, 2017)

Yeah, I think if a writer tells well enough, nobody will give a crap, LOL. Telling is most obvious when the writing is less finely crafted. And it is story telling, after all. heh heh. 

And no, it's not entirely tell, just from a glance. Although it does go heavily into setting the character through past stuff. Just a glance anyhow. This sort of character history telling is fairly common place, particularly in classics and I would presume historical fiction sort of stuff. I don't know the book from boo, but it has a romance-ish historic feel, where I'd guess this sort of intro is welcome.



Aurora said:


> Can I make a quick comment on this? I'm currently reading this: The Champagne Queen and the first chapter is entirely tell. Yet I love it because she's swept me into her world just telling me a story. The way it's written, I'd say that most critiquers would label her style telling and tell her to rewrite it. But it works just fine as is, and it's a beautiful novel.
> 
> I don't have much to add to this lengthy conversation except to say that I still don't know what an MRU is. It sounds like a military meal of some sort. I do think about the other things mentioned, which I hesitate to label as rules because there really are no rules in writing except to entertain the reader.
> 
> ...


----------



## Aurora (Jun 29, 2017)

Svrtnsse said:


> Oh, and thanks for explaining what MRU is.



Me, too! I was hoping they'd come with cigarettes though.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 29, 2017)

Devor said:


> 1)  How much do you use formal writing techniques when developing your style?
> 
> 2)  How much do you focus on your prose while writing versus editing?



I'd like to get in on the second question here. 

I have a really hard time letting go of my prose when I'm writing, even if it's the first draft. I often stop and tweak things to make sure it reads right and that the words flow easily. I know it's just the first draft and that I might change or cut out the entire thing later on, but I still have a hard time leaving bad prose alone. It just irks me.

That said, when it comes down to consecutive drafts, there's not much editing that needs doing as far as prose goes. It's mainly structural things like how sections or chapters don't work. This of course means that all the time I spent on polishing the prose for those passages gets thrown out, but if that's the case then so be it.

What I'm trying to do to compensate this is to have a detailed outline. I try to do multiple passes on the outline and add details every time so that little by little the story takes shape. Then, once it becomes time to start on the actual story, its a bit like painting by numbers where I know everything that's going to happen and I just need to find the pretty words to make it read nicely.

Sure, there will still be sections that don't work and that will need to be redone, but at least they'll only be sections and not the entire thing.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 30, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> "Techniques" is a much better word than either rule or guideline. And I like the quote by Swain, which is at odds with the advice that if you want to produce something of quality you must employ x, y, or z. Going back to the admonition to have microtensions on every page, if I understand Swain correctly he's saying whether you follow advice like that or not doesn't necessarily impact the literary quality of the resulting work.



I think it's hard to see that x, y, z are useful for improving a manuscript and then think that they are unimportant. Assessing their relative importance might be the job of the writer who is writing any given story. 

What did Swain mean? His book covered many other things besides MRUs. Saying _No writer uses all of them_ and _No writer can avoid using some of them_ leaves the door wide open vis-Ã -vis any of the techniques he covered, heh.

The more specific assertion, _[T]hese techniques have little bearing on literary quality or the lack of it_, probably addresses the fact that a story involves so many more things than simply these techniques; and also, how these techniques are used, whether they are used, in relation to the content and those other aspects of a story, make the difference. Plus, everything combines to create a unique author voice and approach to telling that story. Basically, these techniques aren't auto-win approaches.

Edit: I suppose much of that last paragraph could be rewritten to include a consideration of the author's _vision_. I feel this is somewhat where I am lacking, and the same thing happened when I studied poetry. I learned all these techniques and could apply this learning to reading and analyzing finished works, but my own vision for what I wanted to do, starting with a blank page, has often been fuzzy. The tools can't provide that vision.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 30, 2017)

Svrtnsse said:


> I have a really hard time letting go of my prose when I'm writing, even if it's the first draft. I often stop and tweak things to make sure it reads right and that the words flow easily. I know it's just the first draft and that I might change or cut out the entire thing later on, but I still have a hard time leaving bad prose alone. It just irks me.



I'm the same. This immediate revision might not always happen immediately–sometimes, it's the next day as I look over what I wrote the day before–but I'm not one to write full steam ahead without looking back until the whole first draft is written or even a whole chapter.



> That said, when it comes down to consecutive drafts, there's not much editing that needs doing as far as prose goes. It's mainly structural things like how sections or chapters don't work. This of course means that all the time I spent on polishing the prose for those passages gets thrown out, but if that's the case then so be it.



This is interesting because, funnily enough, even though I edit prose as I go, I always manage to find that it needs editing later, too. I think this is about freshness. Quick edits might get me to a place where I think the prose is much better than it was at first, but after enough time passes (later down the manuscript), I'll see that  much-improved prose and discover that it's still lacking in some way.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 30, 2017)

There's always more editing to be done, heh heh. I don't splat write, what I put down needs to be solid, not "finish" quality, but solid in how and what I am saying. This also tends to leave out some tidbits, most often description for me. Or subtext.

Last night I wrote a scene, took a while, but the dialogue and most important stuff is there, but in the "organic" writing mode the subtext of conflict between two men who like the same woman came out soft. The conversation was good, but it just didn't want to go there. It's exists, but I've a note to amp it up a little bit or readers are likely to zip on by. 

White rooms in early drafts are fairly common, as I'm heavily focused on what's important to the scene and the characters.

Subtext and microtension are kissing cousins.


----------



## skip.knox (Jul 3, 2017)

Svrtnsse said:


> Oh, and thanks for explaining what MRU is.



Meals Ready to Upchuck


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 3, 2017)

Bruce Lee comes to mind here... I know, bear with me a moment.

In his philosophy of Jeet Kun do, Bruce Lee was known to say that a trained fighter that can forget his training is the most dangerous. What he was talking about was muscle memory, or the automatic response in the human mind-body connection that all training, regardless of physical discipline, aspires to achieve.

Writing, I think, is similar. When we first start out, many of us settle in to learn everything we can about craft. We focus on specific techniques, debate endlessly about rules, develop personal styles that rely heavily on methods we've tried that fit our goals and vision. At some point, the finer details fall to the background and storytelling becomes, once again, the primary focus. However, now we have a firmer grasp on how we need to write (the techniques and methods we adopted) to be able to _actually execute_ that vision. 

Much like the trained fighter, we no longer need to consciously think about the rules we've adopted. They've become second nature. We're free to focus more on story. We're free to focus our study on higher concepts, like differing levels of emotion in our characters.


----------

