# Terry Bisson's Rules for Writing SFF short stories



## AnneL (Apr 18, 2014)

I just ran across these, which are excellent. I was lucky enough to have dinner with Terry last week, and let me tell you, he's a smart guy.

Rules for Writers


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 19, 2014)

That was the most random list of rules I've ever seen. I can't even call it a good list or a bad list because it's such a grab bag of unexpected assertions.

(Though I disagree strongly on "The main character should be a little stupid." If your reader doesn't identify with the MC, she'll get frustrated, and if she does identify with him, she'll be insulted. And I'm quite proud to have lit rule 44 on fire and stomped on it.)


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 21, 2014)

Interesting list, Anne.

Whenever I see a rule written by anyone who is in any way competent as a writer, my first thought is that it is a starting point for understanding an important principle to writing.  When I read something I don't understand, it prompts me to learn more about the opinion.  

Given that context, it worries me that people's first response is something to the effect that they're proud to ignore one of them.

Anyway, thanks for sharing.

Brian


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 21, 2014)

I disagree with the basic premise set forth at the outset:

"A genre (SF or fantasy) short story is about an idea. The fictional elements (character, plot, setting, etc) are only there to dramatize the idea. "

This is true of some stories, certainly, but it isn't _necessarily _true of genre short stories.

The rule against present tense is empirically false, given the growing prevalence of present tense. 

There are some good ones here and a number of others I think are bollocks. Of course, in reading Bisson's last two "rules" I think it is clear the author understands the problem of rules and isn't seriously setting these forth as absolutes. The last two rules say:


"59. Ignore these rules at your peril.


60. Peril is the SF short story writer's accomplice, adversary, and friend."




Can I have just a little bit of peril?


----------



## Ravana (Apr 21, 2014)

Overall, I'd have to say these are good rules, though far from a comprehensive set (if such a thing is possible). Nor will any set of rules, however long–_especially_ if it's long–apply universally to any given sort of writing.

I'm not sure I agree or disagree with Bisson's basic premise. I think that at a minimum, it's a good one to keep in mind… given that it's expressed in relation to short genre writing. In fact, it's a good rule to keep in mind even for longer pieces, though with those, the elements increase in importance. For short stories, it is certainly one which is ignored at the author's peril, since the author is obliged to do so much else in a limited space. If the idea does not take center stage, it may be difficult to tell the story apart from a non-genre one.

That having been said, the elements should not be given short shrift: "strong characterization," in particular, is the single most cited desideratum I've seen in writing market listings. Bisson's point, I believe, is that if one forgets the "idea" one is trying to express/exemplify through the story, it's likely the story will not accomplish its goal in the space allowed.

Some of the rules involve genre stereotypes, and should be read more broadly, e.g. "no magic carpets": of course one can write a short story involving a magic carpet, but unless it's handled with considerable originality, it will leave the readers cold. A lengthy list of fantasy/SF tropes could be appended here: djinni in lamps, magic mirrors, portals to other worlds… you get the point. This rule also requires a bit of unstated interpretation, I believe, which is that _such elements should not be your "idea."_ If such an element is your idea (e.g. it's a story about someone who finds a magic carpet), then, yeah, probably a non-starter for most readers.

Remember that these rules are expressed specifically relative to writing _short stories_. Which, as far as I can tell, is becoming something of a lost art. The stereotyped tropes, for example, could appear in longer works with much less damage. Magic carpets feature significantly in Glen Cook's _Black Company_ series… but take on far different roles than in the "fable"-type stories Bisson is warning against; Dan Simmons' _Hyperion Cantos_ uses one as well… very well indeed. Readers are far more tolerant of fight descriptions when they take up a comparatively small percentage of the whole; even then they run the risk of being boring. I won't even get into how boring I find sex to _read about_–regardless of format. Some people may like it. I don't. (Sorry, Feo… just the way it is.  )

The real tough one–and probably the most important one–is #57. To paraphrase: _if it's a short story, it must be short–first_. Which is the reason behind several of the other rules, such as those involving flashbacks, dreams, multiple PoVs, and so on: there simply isn't space enough for them to be used properly, and if they can't be used properly, they shouldn't be used at all. Forget "about 4000 words": it's astounding how many markets ask for 3k words or fewer; many state a limit of 2k or even 1.5k. I invite anyone, as an exercise (and a very good one it is, too), to take an already-finished story of greater length and try to get it down within those limits; or, for a story which already falls below one, try to get it down to the next one. You will learn an immense amount about your writing, and about writing in general, in the process.

-

For another good set of rules, there's always this one:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3172/3172-h/3172-h.htm

Yes, it's a "contrived" list, created to make a point. However, I find it hard to argue with most of them. In fact, apart from one requiring generalization (#8, similar to Bisson's #36), I'd have to say that these are all utterly vital to any piece of good fiction writing, of any length. And the way they're expressed, in context, is priceless.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 22, 2014)

No offense to anyone here, but this has got to be one of the stupidest advice lists for writing anything I've ever seen. Yes, yes, I know he's a published author known for his short stories. I'm glad it works for him. But it sounds like I'd absolutely hate all of his work. 

I've seen a bunch of quotes lately where writers try to narrowly define what a short story is. Maybe I'm the stupid one, but as a reader there is one thing and one thing only I expect from a short story. And that is that it doesn't take particularly long to read. Other than that, I want it to be just like any other story. I don't think short stories are special. I think they're stories that don't take very long to tell. 

I hated all the short stories I was forced to read throughout English classes in school. They were all narrow and pretentious and disappointing. They almost always didn't have satisfying endings. After school the only short stories I read were Sherlock Holmes and other similar short mystery stories. They were the only ones that were satisfying to read. Like a story that was short. Then eventually I made myself sit down and read some of the old pulp style fantasy stories by the likes of Howard and Leiber and Lovecraft and such. Imagine my shock when I realized that these were just stories that didn't take particularly long to tell. 

That is what died out as an art. The ability to tell a story in a short space that didn't have to leave out a good ending or pretentiously act more ambiguous than it should because, I don't know, ambiguity is smarter than clarity? (No, it isn't.) But this art is coming back with the rise of the self-published author. Thank God. That's the kind of short story I intend to write. Just like any other story, but shorter. What an amazing concept.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 22, 2014)

> No offense to anyone here, but this has got to be one of the stupidest advice lists for writing anything I've ever seen. Yes, yes, I know he's a published author known for his short stories. I'm glad it works for him. But it sounds like I'd absolutely hate all of his work.



I think Mythopoet takes a completely different route to learning writing than I do.  When I read advice from someone who is successful at something at which I'm not, my first thought is, "What can I learn from this person?"

Mythopoet seems to take the tact of, "What can I find to disagree with here?"

I just read an article by James Patterson on how to create an unputdownable book.  Truthfully, I loathe Patterson's writing, but, you know what, I really want to create unputdownable books.  I took from the article what I could and stored the rest away for possible future use.  I didn't say, "I hate James Patterson. Therefore, I'm not going to agree with anything he says."

I guess my main point is: I haven't read very many authors on this site who have mastered the craft of writing.  I think it's more productive to take what information we can from where we can than to be so dismissive.

Thanks.

Brian


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 22, 2014)

I've read quite a bit of literary fiction, and only come across a small number of stories that I felt were pretentious. It's a common, but ultimately throw-away, criticism of literary fiction by people who don't like it. It is the same as the criticisms of the like of R.E. Howard or Fritz Leiber from those who do like literary fiction and consider these other authors shallow, simplistic, juvenile, or what have you. In the end, they're just different kinds of stories. I like both. Some people prefer one or the other. There's nothing wrong with either. What always amuses me to some degree is that you have people in both camps who can't simply say something isn't for them, but feel the need to try to place some objective fault on what they don't like (simplistic, pretentious, etc.). In reality, they just don't grok that kind of story.

That's my view of the literary v. genre fiction conflict in general. Not saying that's the case here, since I don't know what stories Mythopoet has read, and they may very well have been pretentious. But as a fan of both literary and genre fiction, I feel the need to defend one or the other whenever I see labels like "pretentious" or "simplistic" thrown around.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 22, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> I think Mythopoet takes a completely different route to learning writing than I do.



Yes, that's probably true, but since you don't know me you've put words in my mouth that I would never say and which I do not think. 

I try to learn writing by reading good stories, plain and simple. I think writers learn their craft by absorbing as many good stories into their imagination as they can. But then I strongly value "storytelling" above "writing" always and I don't think that's something you can learn from a list of rules or books of advice.



Steerpike said:


> That's my view of the literary v. genre fiction conflict in general. Not saying that's the case here, since I don't know what stories Mythopoet has read, and they may very well have been pretentious. But as a fan of both literary and genre fiction, I feel the need to defend one or the other whenever I see labels like "pretentious" or "simplistic" thrown around.



Obviously I didn't apply those adjectives to any "genre" in general but only to the stories I was made to read in public school. I would not attempt to characterize any genre which I do not read and am not familiar with. The stories I read in school were enough to make me avoid "literary" fiction for the rest of my life. I'm sure there's good literary fiction out there, but I've never encountered any and life is simply to short for me to waste my time trying to search it out. All the literary fiction that I have been presented with tends to be about subject matter that _I_ find boring, that's all I'll say about it and that is purely my personal opinion. 

I am not objecting to "literary" short stories existing. Obviously they are well liked by many readers and that is enough to justify them. I simply object to the many authors who seem to think that short stories must meet some narrow, "artistic" criteria. That's all very well for the people who like that sort of thing. But it tends to leave the people who don't, like me, in the dust. I object to any view of fiction that focuses on one particular type of story that serves a particular group of readers and rejects all other types of story and thus, by extension, all other groups of readers.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 22, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> Obviously I didn't apply those adjectives to any "genre" in general but only to the stories I was made to read in public school. I would not attempt to characterize any genre which I do not read and am not familiar with. The stories I read in school were enough to make me avoid "literary" fiction for the rest of my life. I'm sure there's good literary fiction out there, but I've never encountered any and life is simply to short for me to waste my time trying to search it out. All the literary fiction that I have been presented with tends to be about subject matter that _I_ find boring, that's all I'll say about it and that is purely my personal opinion.
> 
> I am not objecting to "literary" short stories existing. Obviously they are well liked by many readers and that is enough to justify them. I simply object to the many authors who seem to think that short stories must meet some narrow, "artistic" criteria. That's all very well for the people who like that sort of thing. But it tends to leave the people who don't, like me, in the dust. I object to any view of fiction that focuses on one particular type of story that serves a particular group of readers and rejects all other types of story and thus, by extension, all other groups of readers.



Yeah, I know. I was trying to make a broader point and your post was just a segue. It was at the front of my mind because I just had this discussion with someone about a week ago. I agree that the narrow definition of what a short story has to be is a problem, and where it is really a problem is with editors at some of the higher-paying markets, where a "plain old adventure story," as they'd likely characterize it, isn't likely to be accepted no matter how well done. Those editors seems to think that you need a certain "literary" quality to the story before they'll buy it for their market. I'd like to see a healthy short story market for straight-forward stories in the vein of Leiber, Howard, and so on. When the establishment tends to limit itself to one type of story to the exclusion of others, I don't think it is healthy for the genre. But I think some of those editors are worried they'll be looked upon as less serious markets if they take those stories.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 22, 2014)

There was a very specific point when I stopped caring about rules lists like this. I was reading _Understanding Comics_ by Scott McCloud, keeping track of the various rules it describes for how a comic should be written. With each new rule, I realized "Hey, _Johnny the Homicidal Maniac_ breaks this!" Once he got to the part about how comics should have simple art and simple dialogue*, I started trying to imagine what JtHM would actually be like if it followed all those rules, and I realized it would be a mess.

Scott McCloud is a very successful artist. He is successful because he has found, and follows, a set of rules that work for the kinds of stories he wants to tell. _Zot!_ is a great comic that has deservedly acquired a large following. But that doesn't mean all his rules necessarily work for Jhonen Vasquez, or for Alison Bechdel, or even for Tarol Hunt.

I have read some of Terry Bisson's work, and I've liked more than I disliked. But he doesn't seem to care about character and emotion the same way I do, and I would find it boring and tedious to write stories that read like his stories. That doesn't mean I can't learn from the techniques he uses, but "these rules would not work for me" is a perfectly valid response.

*Boiling it down a LOT, but that's the rough gist of it.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 23, 2014)

> Yes, that's probably true, but since you don't know me you've put words in my mouth that I would never say and which I do not think.



Just going by the way your posts come across.  If that's not your intent, perhaps you should try to clarify your actual point.



> But then I strongly value "storytelling" above "writing" always and I don't think that's something you can learn from a list of rules or books of advice.



I have learned a lot from such lists.  I've also learned a lot from reading stories.

I guess the main difference between us is that I try to stay open to learning from all sources.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 23, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> Just going by the way your posts come across.  If that's not your intent, perhaps you should try to clarify your actual point.



Perhaps you should stop trying to read more into a post than it is meant to convey. Or perhaps you should just stop grinding your axe at me.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 23, 2014)

> There was a very specific point when I stopped caring about rules lists like this. I was reading Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud, keeping track of the various rules it describes for how a comic should be written. With each new rule, I realized "Hey, Johnny the Homicidal Maniac breaks this!" Once he got to the part about how comics should have simple art and simple dialogue*, I started trying to imagine what JtHM would actually be like if it followed all those rules, and I realized it would be a mess.



Feo,

My approach would be completely different.  In a similar situation, I would:

Consider what Scott McCloud's rules achieve
Consider how JtHM is able to achieve interest by breaking those rules
Try to take what I could from the difference and apply it to my writing

I wouldn't say, "Well, this one guy here breaks all these rules and is pretty good, so I guess all rules are pointless."


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 23, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> Perhaps you should stop trying to read more into a post than it is meant to convey. Or perhaps you should just stop grinding your axe at me.



This is an internet forum where we all express our opinions.  If you put something out there that I disagree with, I'm going to state my opposition.  Otherwise, what's the point of the forum?


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 23, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> This is an internet forum where we all express our opinions.  If you put something out there that I disagree with, I'm going to state my opposition.  Otherwise, what's the point of the forum?



That is an old and tired argument. Forums do not exist for people to communicate any opinion they have. (That's why you can get banned for breaking the rules and "but that was my opinion" is not a valid excuse. Believe me, I know.) 

Furthermore, your "opinion" was to take a statement I made about one particular author's article and assume that I would have the same reaction to any author's advice. You then went even further to transform that particular opinion into what you imagine is apparently my entire worldview when it comes to learning from those with experience. 

To state it plainly, your opinion is uninformed, illogical and wrong.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 23, 2014)

> That is an old and tired argument. Forums do not exist for people to communicate any opinion they have. (That's why you can get banned for breaking the rules and "but that was my opinion" is not a valid excuse. Believe me, I know.)



Actually, the forum, to the best of my knowledge, does exist to communicate opinions as long as those opinions are stated thoughtfully and not take the form of personal attacks.



> Furthermore, your "opinion" was to take a statement I made about one particular author's article and assume that I would have the same reaction to any author's advice. You then went even further to transform that particular opinion into what you imagine is apparently my entire worldview when it comes to learning from those with experience.



I don't feel that's what I did at all.

Here's my view of what happened:

One of our forum members took the time to post a list that she found helpful.  I read the list and found it helpful.

Others, yourself included, posted negative comments about the list.

I created a post expressing my disdain for your attitude in expressing such negativity.

After making the post, you have done nothing to argue against my position other than to say that I'm wrong in my interpretation.  Personally, I think this forum works best when the members exchange ideas something like this:

Person A expresses an opinion
Person B expresses disagreement
Person A expresses why Person B is wrong as opposed to just saying, "You're wrong!"


----------



## Ravana (Apr 23, 2014)

My quibble, to the extent I have one, and to the extent that it tends away from what anyone else has said, is this: it's not what a short story has to _be_ that's at issue–it's what the story has to _do_. And that is to tell a complete story in a very limited space. This is the motivating factor behind many of Bisson's "rules." And this, I suspect, is why so few people write short fiction: it's _hard_.

It becomes all the more difficult when you set that story in a world which differs from the familiar, since you're also obliged to create a reasonably clear image of that setting at the same time you're doing everything else which makes a story worth reading. This problem, as far as I know, is unique to fantasy/SF–other genres, such as western, historical, romance, etc. (let alone "non-genre" literary) can simply draw upon our familiarity with our own world. Yes, even horror, unless you've displaced the action to some other setting; in fact, part of the efficacy of horror is to have it occur within an otherwise "normal" setting, one the reader might plausibly be located in. (Imagine how different Poe or Kafka would be if they'd set their works in fantasy settings.) This factor motivates several of Bisson's other "rules."

It's clear Bisson was not trying to provide a well-ordered list of categorical statements. My guess is he sat down and info-dumped one day, then simply added new ones in whenever he thought of them… probably whenever he ran across a story which exemplified a particular problem. As I mentioned previously, a comprehensive set of "rules" is probably not possible, for any length or genre. However… one can look at any writer's personal "rules" set and find value in it; at a minimum, one should consider each rule and ask the question "why is this here?" There will always be a reason–and you may well find yourself agreeing with the reason, whether you agree with the rule as stated or not. Discerning those reasons, then honestly asking of your own writing whether or not it "violates" a given reason, and if so whether or not your violation is appropriate, or if your story mightn't be better if you address or remove that violation… that's the value of lists like this.

Mythopoet is ultimately correct in saying that short stories are, in essence, "just stories that didn't take particularly long to tell." They certainly ought to be. What the majority of Bisson's list focuses on, and what can be most usefully taken away from it, is _what you should do, or avoid doing, if this is your goal_. 

I'd disagree, however, that short story writing is an art which is coming back with self-publishing. The reason I disagree is that, with self-publishing, there's no reason to exercise the discipline necessary to fit a story within the "short" category: if you're publishing it yourself, you can make it any length you want. If anything, I suspect that the art of writing short stories is being further demolished by self-pub. I would rarely write a "short" story if I weren't facing some length constraint: the novelette is the form I find most natural (most of my stuff comes in at around 7-8k words… I'm sure that comes as a shock to y'all  ). There's nothing wrong with writing novelettes… but they _aren't_ short stories. And the discipline involved in writing a complete story in 3k words or fewer is invaluable. It will make your longer works all the stronger for having the intensive practice in removing that which is not necessary… a lesson every aspiring author needs to learn, regardless of format or length.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 23, 2014)

I agree with the idea stated by Ravana of telling a complete story within a limited space. I suppose people may argue about what is a complete story, and perhaps that underscores some of the tension between adherents of literary fiction versus genre fiction.

A complete story may be very obvious:

1. Dragon attacks village.
2. Heroes learn of the dragon attack.
3. Heroes defeat the dragon and save the village.

That's a complete story, and a very basic one. But a story doesn't have to follow such a clear path to be complete. For instance, I read a story a while back (literary fiction) that centered on a shy, unmarried girl who was afraid to put herself 'out there' in social situations. There is no 'overt' action in the story. There is a social gathering coming up, and she resolves that she will finally get out there in the world and try to meet people. It doesn't go well, though again nothing overly dramatic happens. She isn't raped, beaten, or anything like that. The end of the story is reached over a very short period of time, where not much has transpired in the way of external events.

But it is a complete story because of what happens to the character. It is clear at the beginning of the story that while she is shy and withdrawn, she still has to the potential to go the other way - to meet someone, to marry, etc. It is equally clear by the end of the story that she no longer has that potential. The social gathering was her one chance, and having passed she has lost that opportunity. The character has irrevocably changed in that she can no longer go back to the person who had the potential to move outside of where she was when the story started.

That's a complete story.

I feel like a lot of writing "rules" are really meant to push heavily plot-based stories with an overt conflict (which usually takes the form of violent conflict in SF/F). There is a lot more to the world of short stories than that.


----------



## Ravana (Apr 23, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> I feel like a lot of writing "rules" are really meant to push heavily plot-based stories with an overt conflict (which usually takes the form of violent conflict in SF/F). There is a lot more to the world of short stories than that.



Yep. And if anything, Bisson agrees with you. Forget plot, forget action: focus on the story's core.

To extend his thoughts to your example: the "idea" in this story is whether or not the girl overcomes her shyness and enters broader society. This is, of course, not necessarily what Bisson's mention of "idea" might invoke to some–i.e. the way he expresses it, the "idea" seems to be more about a fantasy or futuristic element around which a story might revolve. And it can be, and if it's such an idea you want to focus on,_ then focus on it_: all else is there in order to exemplify and discuss it.

However, an "idea" could as easily be… well, what you cite in this story, albeit with whatever level of transformation is required to move it into a genre.

- Example of how it might work: the shy, unmarried girl is facing a similar situation, except that here she's obliged interact socially with members of a different species if she ever wants to enter society at all.

- Example of how it would _not_ work: telling exactly the same story as the original, except that it takes place in a magical castle or space station.

This is what Bisson was after in differentiating genre stories from non-genre ones. You can tell the same story, word for word, apart from altering the window dressing… and it would fail utterly, because the window dressing does _not_ make it a genre story. If the fantasy/SF setting does not change the story in a meaningful way, does not import some "idea" without which the story would _not_ be the same, you have not written a genre story: you've written a mainstream one which will bore genre readers and never be read by mainstream readers.

I recall a piece of advice a friend received from a writing teacher, oh, ages ago. She'd written a story in which the main character rode a unicorn. The teacher asked her why there was a unicorn in the story. Well, the easy answer is that she wanted it to be a unicorn. All well and good. But the teacher's point was that the story would have been identical in every way if it had been a horse. In other words, having a unicorn in the story made no difference whatsoever. So if you want to add a rule to Bisson's list: "If it makes no difference whether it's a unicorn or a horse, use a horse." This is, of course, a narrow statement of a far more general principle, in fact of two principles: first, if there's no reason to use the unfamiliar, opt for the familiar (similar in some ways to Bisson's #10); second, if an element does not perform a function within the story, it does not belong in the story.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 23, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> I wouldn't say, "Well, this one guy here breaks all these rules and is pretty good, so I guess all rules are pointless."



Perhaps I overstated my case when I said that I didn't care about rules lists. As I said earlier, I do think it's useful and important to learn from the techniques other writers use. But I view it more in terms of the works they write--the rules they list off are important mostly so you can more efficiently extract their techniques.

In Bisson's case, his rules are helpful for writing stories like "I Saw the Light" and "Bears Discover Fire." My stories aren't much like those, so his techniques aren't all that helpful to me. That doesn't mean I can't learn from, say, the way he handles the concept of religious rapture, but it does mean I can ignore more of his list than I could of a list by, say, Orson Scott Card (whom I write much more similarly to.)

Edit: My original phrasing of this was more confrontational than it needed to be, so I'll tone it down. I think you're misinterpreting a lot of what Mythopoet is saying. Seriously, reread her earlier posts--there are things you're saying she's saying that just don't seem like they follow logically from what she actually posted.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 23, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> Person A expresses an opinion
> Person B expresses disagreement
> Person A expresses why Person B is wrong as opposed to just saying, "You're wrong!"



I think you're completely misunderstanding my position. I couldn't care less what your opinion is about Terry Bisson's list of rules. If you disagree with my assessment it matters not in the least to me. You're free to think whatever you want about the list. 

What I object to is your negative characterization of me, as evidenced in this quote from your post:



> I think Mythopoet takes a completely different route to learning writing than I do. When I read advice from someone who is successful at something at which I'm not, my first thought is, "What can I learn from this person?"
> 
> Mythopoet seems to take the tact of, "What can I find to disagree with here?"



This is a characterization entirely based on false assumptions and thus is wrong. Now please, can this pointless exchange stop?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 23, 2014)

> What I object to is your negative characterization of me, as evidenced in this quote from your post:



But the negative characterization stems from your stated opinions, and you've done nothing to change my assessment.



> Now please, can this pointless exchange stop?



Feel free to stop anytime you wish.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 23, 2014)

Let's not take this line of thought any farther. It's not acceptable to make personal judgments or comments on Mythic Scribes. 

Everyone in this thread is capable of clear, on topic expression without resorting to personal attacks or arguments. 

Disagreement is fine, but ensure the discussion remains constructive.


----------



## Guy (Apr 23, 2014)

One thing I've noticed about successful writers is that they tend to break a lot of rules. Frequently.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 23, 2014)

Guy said:


> One thing I've noticed about successful writers is that they tend to break a lot of rules. Frequently.



Yes, and you can find them doing it in first novels, so it's not merely a case of being able to get away with it because they're famous.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 23, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> Yes, and you can find them doing it in first novels, so it's not merely a case of being able to get away with it because they're famous.


  If you're trying to look at a list of rules as if they should apply to any and all, then yes, they're constantly broken. Rather, I'd say each author should develop rules that enable their own style. Within your specific rules set, the one you've cultured over time and which applies to your vision, your probably going to adhere to them more than break away. When you do break away, it's likely you're doing so for a purpose.


----------



## Ravana (Apr 24, 2014)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> When you do break away, it's likely you're doing so for a purpose.



Agree… though only _if_ you're doing it _on_ purpose. If you're breaking a "rule" accidentally or through inattention, it's no credit to you and you won't be able to repeat it deliberately, to effect, at a later date. Or, as the homily goes: you need to know the rules before you break them.

I'm no fan of lists of rules, contrary to any impressions I might be creating here. I've been "defending" Bisson's mostly for the purpose of exemplification. What I _am_ a fan of is being aware of what you're doing, and why you're doing it. This is something any list of (reasonable[SUP]1[/SUP]) rules can help a writer with—it's a list of things the other author is aware of doing, or of things that author is aware of other authors doing: it's something which has already been thought out and applied by someone in the business. The value of any individual rule on any given list can be debated, but it will rarely be the case that a rule is not worthy of being given any consideration whatsoever.

Most writers seem to hate "rules." I'm good with that. I don't use a specific list myself… apart from a handful of reminders of idiosyncrasies I desperately need to make sure I'm not overindulging myself in.[sup]2[/sup] However, whenever I see someone saying that some rule doesn't apply to his work, my inevitable first impulse is to question how well that person truly understands his work, not to applaud his independence. He may be right; far more often, he hasn't given the matter sufficient consideration.

•

1. An "unreasonable"—that is, pointless—rule might be: "All flying monkeys should be left-handed."
2. Yes, intricate syntax _does_ fall near the top. Why do you ask?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 24, 2014)

> However, whenever I see someone saying that some rule doesn't apply to his work, my inevitable first impulse is to question how well that person truly understands his work, not to applaud his independence. He may be right; far more often, he hasn't given the matter sufficient consideration.



This is such a true statement.

What I keep coming back to is that writing fiction that will truly capture a reader's interest is freaking hard, and it takes a lot of effort to get to a point where you can do it well.  It seems silly to me to disregard any advice from people who know what they're talking about without giving that advice serious consideration.


----------



## Chessie (Apr 24, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> Yes, and you can find them doing it in first novels, so it's not merely a case of being able to get away with it because they're famous.


I was reading a story from a famous author (I won't name him but he's a biggie right now), and the first paragraph of his book was completely passive. I think that's the book that made him famous. 

But my 2 cents about the discussion: I find inspiration from other authors as well, and someday I hope that I'm able to share something with new writers to help them along their way. Writing rules are subjective and personalized imo. But I like to read these sorts of articles (and watch youtube videos) because someone may say something that will help me. I think its important to keep an open mind not just because someone is successful, but because we're all in this together and the support is invaluable.

EDIT: Wanted to add that whenever I have applied a writing rule, its strengthened my writing and helped me learn something. I don't always follow rules and frankly, sometimes I like my "-ly", etc. I see writing as any other craft I've had to learn, where I look up to others who have more experience than I do and are publishing their books. I respect that.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 24, 2014)

My take on why beginning authors seem to cling to the idea of rules is a bit different, and I suppose a bit less charitable (depending on how you view it).

As Brian noted above, writing is hard work. Putting out something that is going to grab and reader and have them clamoring for more is not easy. What's more, though, is there is no one path to doing it, and no real way of predicting success. It's part science and larger part art. That is hard to quantify. 

When humans set out to accomplish something, they want to build certainty around it. If you want to be a doctor, you plan out the course of your education, and assuming you follow the appropriate steps and do them well, you'll be a doctor. For beginning writers, there is in my view a great deal of comfort in thinking things are the same with fiction writing. If you work at it, follow steps A, B, and C, and adopt the Ten Rules of Writing, then you'll be a successful writer.

Only, in writing it's not true. So while rules lend new writers comfort, giving them the impression that there is a recipe for success that one need but follow to become a self-supporting professional writer, it is a false comfort. There is no one path to success and no set of rules guaranteed to get you there.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 24, 2014)

> When humans set out to accomplish something, they want to build certainty around it. If you want to be a doctor, you plan out the course of your education, and assuming you follow the appropriate steps and do them well, you'll be a doctor. For beginning writers, there is in my view a great deal of comfort in thinking things are the same with fiction writing. If you work at it, follow steps A, B, and C, and adopt the Ten Rules of Writing, then you'll be a successful writer.
> 
> Only, in writing it's not true. So while rules lend new writers comfort, giving them the impression that there is a recipe for success that one need but follow to become a self-supporting professional writer, it is a false comfort. There is no one path to success and no set of rules guaranteed to get you there.



Steerpike,

Two separate issues that I see here:

1. What is the message that should be conveyed to "new" writers?

2. What is useful to "less new" writers who are learning their craft?

Regarding 1: I agree with you that no one should be trying to convey to new writers that a certain recipe will lead them to success.  I think a much better message is something like, "The road is difficult, and part of what makes it so difficult is that, at first, you don't even know enough to evaluate your own progress.  Seek wisdom from a lot of sources as no one can predict where you'll find that one idea that leads you to your next increase in skill.  Get as much feedback as you can.  Figure out what works for you and don't stop learning."

Regarding 2: Personally, I find rules a great way both to communicate and to have communicated to me, quickly and easily, writing and storytelling techniques.  If a particular rule strikes a fancy, I can research it more.  If not, I can file it away for future use.

I guess that my main problem with an "anti-rule" stance is that I don't understand the alternative method of learning that is being proposed.

I get the rule side:

A writer says, "This, this, and this works for me."  I can then evaluate each of the things he lists and determine if they will work for me as much as it worked for the originator of the advice.

I don't get the anti-rule side:

Each writer has to somehow discover how to write?  How do they ever advance like this?  

So, I guess, my main point is that, while rules aren't a perfect way to learn writing, it's the only viable option I've heard.


----------



## Ravana (Apr 24, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> Only, in writing it's not true. So while rules lend new writers comfort, giving them the impression that there is a recipe for success that one need but follow to become a self-supporting professional writer, it is a false comfort. There is no one path to success and no set of rules guaranteed to get you there.



True dat.

However, as BWFoster78 observes, there's also the "you gotta start somewhere" factor. So while rules can't serve as a recipe, they can serve as a good grounding, all the more so for someone who lacks practice and experience. 

The reason rules can't serve as a recipe is that no matter how many of them you follow, nor how closely, they will never generate a _story_: if you don't have a story, you've got squat. (Well, apart from Harlequin romances, which I think have reached the realm of algorithms.) What rules _can_ do is let you take your story and turn it into a passable text, even if you have never done this before and have no idea how to. Once it's reached "passable," go back through it again–and again, etc.–reapplying the rules, making sure you didn't fail to apply them where you ought to have (or where they are now relevant due to some change you made in the previous pass), and considering any new rules you've picked up in the meantime. After a few passes you will probably have a text that's more than merely "passable"; it's not going to be high literature, but its remaining flaws are going to reflect weaknesses in your story, not in your ability to organize and present it. Which is important, because you may never be able to identify the flaws in your story until you have eliminated more prosaic [sic] possibilities.

Then, and only then, should the author start to consider ways in which to violate rules. 

Even after all that, you still don't have art. Let's face it: most writing rules tell you what not to do, and even the ones that tell you what to do generally don't (or can't) tell you how, only let you know what the end product is supposed to look like. But rules can get you to the point where art is the only thing you still need to worry about.

Whether you can take it beyond that point or not… is impossible to predict. Just gotta keep trying.

-

Here's a writing exercise, for anyone interested in trying it: pick one of your completed stories. Look up Twain's "rules" (presented in his essay "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offences"–the Gutenberg link I provide on page 1), and go through your story, considering each one in turn. Importantly, look not only for places you don't follow each rule, but also the places you _do_. This, I think, is where most people fail to take full advantage of rules sets: they can identify what you're doing _right_ as well as what you might wish to reconsider. And it's knowing what you're doing right that allows you to do it again.

Give it a whirl. It'll probably turn out to be more fun than it may sound like at first. 

-

Tangential, but relevant, comment: another thing one sees from time to time is a writer claiming that he doesn't spend a lot of time revising–that he writes his stuff in one pass and doesn't need all this redrafting, peer review, etc. rigmarole. The industry has a word for such people. It's "amateur."


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 25, 2014)

Ravana said:


> Tangential, but relevant, comment: another thing one sees from time to time is a writer claiming that he doesn't spend a lot of time revising—that he writes his stuff in one pass and doesn't need all this redrafting, peer review, etc. rigmarole. The industry has a word for such people. It's "amateur."



Or they could be the real professionals. The ones that have been writing for so long that they don't need to do much editing anymore. They're just good enough to write good first drafts.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 25, 2014)

I've actually sold a first draft of a story, so I'm not in the camp of people who think it just can't be done well on the first go.


----------



## Philip Overby (Apr 26, 2014)

> I guess that my main problem with an "anti-rule" stance is that I don't understand the alternative method of learning that is being proposed.
> 
> I get the rule side:
> 
> ...



BW: I'm guessing that the anti-rule stance would be more of trial and error way of going about doing things. Try something and see if it works. If it doesn't, then try something else. I feel like rules that say "do this or do that" are helpful in some ways, but writers only ever really find their true path by writing and putting things out there. I think there's a lot of this "fragile egg" syndrome with a lot of writers nowadays. They may be afraid to put work out there that they're not absolutely positive is going to be praised and liked. I find this problematic in some ways because you have writers who never actually take that next step because their ideal doesn't match their reality. Ideally I want to be writing mind-blowingly insane fiction. I'm not at that point yet. But will I ever be? 

So I'd say, yes, rules are helpful for anyone starting out. It gives them a jumping off point at least. I'm not sure "just figure it out" is really helpful for brand new writers. However, they have to cast off the rules when they feel comfortable, just like a kid taking off training wheels. They have to pop a wheelie, ride down a hill, try a couple of tricks. That's the only way writers ever feel comfortable in their own skin. It's by figuring out the basics and then letting loose and seeing what works and what doesn't. A writer who constantly needs someone telling him or her what is right will be always grasping at straws. 

That said, if rules help, follow them. I find certain structures extremely helpful for me (scene/sequel for instance), but others may find them too restricting. Just like one guitarist may love to use scales and chords, another may prefer just wail on the strings and make noises come out.


----------



## Guy (Apr 26, 2014)

Write the type of story you'd like to read.

See how other authors have done it.

Do what works.


----------



## Philip Overby (Apr 26, 2014)

> Write the type of story you'd like to read.
> 
> See how other authors have done it.
> 
> Do what works.



This actually works in practice, but as some have said, new writers want the easy way out. There is no easy way out. However, storytelling often does follow some basic principles that writers could learn. Once they've learned them, then break them. But I'm not of the opinion that every writer _needs_ to "break the rules." Some do perfectly fine following a rather simple format: MC wants something, goes after it, doesn't get, keeps trying, gets it/doesn't get it. 

I think most writers who existed before "How to Get Published" books, blogs, or forums just read widely and did exactly what you said: tried to do what their favorite authors were doing in a different way (or sometimes even the same way). 

"What works" is the subjective part. Sometimes what works doesn't appeal to a wide base of people. There are many literary writers who obviously know what they're doing, but still only scratch by with each novel they write. "What works" can be writing as artistically as possible or it can be trying to appeal to a wide base. Or it can be both. 

I tend to think if five people love something and five people hate it, then that is when it works.


----------



## Ravana (Apr 26, 2014)

Philip Overby said:


> I tend to think if five people love something and five people hate it, then that is when it works.



Shoot, I don't care if only one out of ten likes it, as long as the other nine find the writing lucid enough they can readily identify why they don't. 

I always hope (and strive) for more, of course.…

I can even point to a commercially-successful example to illustrate what I mean: Marion Zimmer Bradley's _Mists of Avalon_. I read it once, and didn't like it, unlike most of her other books I'd read to that point. A couple years later I read it again. It didn't take long before I was pretty sure I'd identified why I didn't like it, but I finished it anyway. And that's the last time I'll ever read it, because now I know. It's not because it isn't well-written. It's because it _is_ well-written. Bradley somehow managed to write a 900-page novel in which I could not find a single likeable character*… and she did it very well indeed. 

See Mr. Twain's rule #10. 

-



> I think most writers who existed before "How to Get Published" books, blogs, or forums just read widely and did exactly what you said: tried to do what their favorite authors were doing in a different way (or sometimes even the same way).



Most, I imagine, still do. And I'd say it's still the best way to develop one's writing. Rules aid mostly in eliminating mistakes and providing a solid base… and, frequently, aiding in identifying _what_ it is your favorite author does. That is, they give you a starting point: "Does X do this? Okay… _how_ does X do this?" Which is the crucial factor. You can't try to do what your favorite author did if you don't even know what it is he did which makes you like his writing. You can mirror overt things such as plot or broad genre-defining qualities readily enough (you want to write epic fantasy, so you make it long  )… but how do you prevent it from being drivel? It isn't necessarily that beginners want easy ways out (I'm sure most would love to have some: I know I would), so much as wanting some way to gain traction on a seemingly esoteric craft, to begin to pick it apart and determine why you like X, think Y is okay, and desperately want to avoid sounding like Z.

In some cases, it's even fairly obvious one author is trying to duplicate what another one did: in Steven Brust's early work, he transparently strove to mimic Roger Zelazny's style–and openly, and would have been thrilled by the comparison. He has long since developed his own voice… which still sounds like Zelazny, and I'm sure he's still happy to be likened to him, and who could blame him?

Me, I try to write like the both of 'em. And would be ecstatic to be considered worthy of comparison to either. 

-

* Seriously: my favorite character was Accolon. Raise your hand if you do _not_ need to Google the name.


----------



## rhd (Apr 27, 2014)

The science of writing SF | Books | theguardian.com

Short article I just read, thought I'd share on this thread instead of starting a new one. The comments are always fun.


----------



## Guy (Apr 27, 2014)

Philip Overby said:


> I tend to think if five people love something and five people hate it, then that is when it works.


That might explain a bit of criticism I got a couple of years back.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 28, 2014)

Guy said:


> Write the type of story you'd like to read.
> 
> See how other authors have done it.
> 
> Do what works.



Guy.

I think this is a wonderful idea.  However, I think it takes a lot of time to get to the point where one can truly understand how a writer accomplished what they did.

If you look over my shoulder while I'm solving a differential equation, you'll see the final result, but, unless you've had quite a few calculus classes, you're not going to have any idea how I solved it.

How do you gain that basic understanding if not for the rules?


----------



## Guy (Apr 28, 2014)

Because writing a story is far more subjective than solving equations. There are hard, unalterable rules for math and there is only one right answer to the equation. For artistic endeavors, they're more like guidelines than actual rules. Look at how often successful writers break them. The right answer is whatever works. The same story can be told any number of ways that work.  "Rules" that apply to one genre might not apply to another. What works for one audience won't necessarily work for another. Look at the list linked in the original post. Plenty of those rules are, at best, highly debatable. Following a formula to write a story often results in formulaic writing.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 29, 2014)

Guy said:


> Because writing a story is far more subjective than solving equations. There are hard, unalterable rules for math and there is only one right answer to the equation. For artistic endeavors, they're more like guidelines than actual rules. Look at how often successful writers break them. The right answer is whatever works. The same story can be told any number of ways that work.  "Rules" that apply to one genre might not apply to another. What works for one audience won't necessarily work for another. Look at the list linked in the original post. Plenty of those rules are, at best, highly debatable. Following a formula to write a story often results in formulaic writing.



Guy,

The problem is, and I've seen this repeated over and over with new author after new author, people just starting out typically think they know a lot more about writing than they actually do.  They think, "Hey, I was good in HS English.  I know how to write."  They then put out the most horrible, unreadable dreck and actually think that it is as good as what professional authors are doing.

I fell into this trap myself.  I thought my stuff was a lot better than it actually was.  I look back now at the stuff I was producing just a year ago and find it to be unreadable dreck.

So, take someone who wants to be a writer.  He reads a lot of fiction and says, "Okay, I want to write like my favorite author."

He produces what he thinks is something similar to what his favorite author would write, but, in actuality, what he's produced is complete unreadable dreck.  The worst part is that he probably never even realizes how bad it is.  He publishes the book, and no one ever buys it.

Learning the rules at least gets him in the frame of mind where he can start advancing his skill.

EDIT: My main takeaway from what I've experienced so far is this:

Writing anything that people actually will want to read is difficult, but it's not rocket surgery (one of my favorite phrases  ).  It can be learned by pretty much anyone.  The problem is that a lot of people don't understand that they need to learn or how to go about it.

For me, the rules are a fantastic starting place.  They summarize how other writers go about creating works that people actually want to read.

If a new author a) understands that they need to learn and b) have a way of learning that doesn't involve rules, good for them.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 29, 2014)




----------



## Jabrosky (Apr 29, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> Guy,
> 
> The problem is, and I've seen this repeated over and over with new author after new author, people just starting out typically think they know a lot more about writing than they actually do.  They think, "Hey, I was good in HS English.  I know how to write."  They then put out the most horrible, unreadable dreck and actually think that it is as good as what professional authors are doing.
> 
> ...


There are of course basic grammar and spelling rules that we must almost always adhere to, and it's unfortunately the case that a lot of inexperienced writers these days don't know even those. I wouldn't say those are the avid readers who want to emulate their favorite authors though. Instead they're the kids whose reading experience is limited to cruddy online fan-fiction and are writing only for attention from other kids on the Internet. If they read more properly edited books, they would know what good fiction looks like and have a better source for emulation.


----------



## Amanita (Apr 29, 2014)

The rules of grammar and spelling have to be known before anyone can hope to write a readable novel of course. You also need a feeling for language which is gained through reading many different works, through writing practice and through literary analysis in school as well. If someone's good at those, he or she will be able to figure out why someone else's story works or doesn't work, which tools the author uses to get his story told etc.
There also are some rules about plot and story structure which should be observed. The ending should be well-rounded and connected to the rest of the story for example, something where many books and movies have disappointed me. Pacing is important as well. This used to be one of my weakest points. I recently found an entire chapter of 5000 words which could be summed up as: "The train journey went smoothly."
I don't believe in rules about stylistic choices such as "adverbs or no adverbs", "tight writing or flowery descriptions" etc. This depends on the story, the genre, the intended audience etc. Barely anyone seems to mind the adverbs in Harry Potter for example and I doubt the book would really have gained too much if she had replaced them. Surely not in sales numbers. 
When I see a list of rules by some author, I take a curious look, remember what I think works for me and ignore the rest. I don't think there is a formula to write a successful book and if there were, why would published authors want to share it? More competition. 
Books surely can be written depending only on a set of rules and will probably sell if they hit some trend but they're more likely to be of the shallow, mass-produced kind. A really good book needs more than that. Tolkien for example had his knowledge about linguistics for a foundation and his experiences from WW1 to give some realism to the scenes dealing with war, injury and death even though it's never been made explicit. 
I think believing that published authors are all excellent and therefore everything they say needs to be adhered to is wrong. I've come across lots of published "dreck" which would have been torn to shreds on the Showcase but still seemed to sell. Luck, knowing the right people and ofcourse perseverance and the courage to take one's writing out in the first place seem to be the main difference.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 29, 2014)

Jabrosky said:


> There are of course basic grammar and spelling rules that we must almost always adhere to, and it's unfortunately the case that a lot of inexperienced writers these days don't know even those. I wouldn't say those are the avid readers who want to emulate their favorite authors though. Instead they're the kids whose reading experience is limited to cruddy online fan-fiction and are writing only for attention from other kids on the Internet. If they read more properly edited books, they would know what good fiction looks like and have a better source for emulation.



Maybe others are just better than me at reading something and, absent other stimulus, figuring out how to reproduce it.  Now that I've got a few years of hard study under my belt, I find myself gaining some ability to do this.  When I started out, and I'm not talking about fan-fiction here, I had zero ability to get anything out of reading other than entertainment.

For me, it took learning rules about how to write for me to understand how those writers captured my interest. Oh, that guy used tension to capture my interest there.  That author made me care about the protagonist by...  On the flip side, I found that piece dreadfully boring because...

If you don't have the foundation of knowing what you're "supposed" to do, how do you ever determine what another writer actually did?


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 29, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> If you don't have the foundation of knowing what you're "supposed" to do, how do you ever determine what another writer actually did?



Of course, books and rules of writing etc., are relatively recent. How did writers figure it out before them? By reading.


----------



## Ravana (Apr 29, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> Of course, books and rules of writing etc., are relatively recent. How did writers figure it out before them? By reading.



Recent relative to what? The _Iliad_? I own style manuals more than a century old. Twain's essay dates from 1895. Alexander Pope's _An Essay on Criticism_ is from 1711. Sidney's _An Apology for Poetry_ from 1595. Aristotle's _Poetics_ and _Rhetoric_… yeah, like that.

I agree, the _proliferation_ of such books is a fairly recent phenomenon… but their existence is nothing new. It's just that far more people have realized there's a quick buck to be made writing them.

That having been said: read first. Definitely. And last. And often. And re-read. Without that, I can't imagine any number of guides and self-help books profiting the aspiring author.



Amanita said:


> why would published authors want to share it?



'Cause a lot of them are editors, too, and wish they didn't have to put up with the drivel they see day in, day out. 



Amanita said:


> analysis



*^ This.*

"School" notwithstanding. As with manuals, the teacher is only a guide, pointing out those things you should be attending to if you wish to understand and master the craft. You can do without; guidance facilitates the process. Think of "rules lists" as "lecture notes" instead and see if they feel any different.

If you can't analyze, however you learn to do so, you'll never be able to tell the differences–and similarities–between your writing and that of those you wish to emulate. 

How many times would someone have to read _Gormenghast_ before he could produce a piece that felt, that read, the same way, Steerpike… if he couldn't identify what it is about Peake's writing that makes it what it is? No, there's no book of instructions that would allow this, no list, no recipe, nor even any combination thereof; but the consideration of such guideposts _in relation to_ the text _might_. They would certainly ease the task. Some people absorb elements of style from reading more readily than others, to be sure… but I can't imagine anyone not being able to look at the recommendations of another accomplished author and derive _something_ of use from it.

Writing guidelines can't teach you _how_ to write. They _can_ teach you how someone else _has_, when taken in consideration alongside that other's writing, so that you can try to do something similar yourself. That's their principal value, and correct means of employment, in my view.



BWFoster78 said:


> I fell into this trap myself.  I thought my stuff was a lot better than it actually was.  I look back now at the stuff I was producing just a year ago and find it to be unreadable dreck.



Didn't we all?


----------



## Guy (Apr 29, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> Guy,
> 
> The problem is, and I've seen this repeated over and over with new author after new author, people just starting out typically think they know a lot more about writing than they actually do.  They think, "Hey, I was good in HS English.  I know how to write."  They then put out the most horrible, unreadable dreck and actually think that it is as good as what professional authors are doing.


This is an oversimplification - just because I'm not a fan of rules doesn't mean I think writing fiction is easy.


> I fell into this trap myself.  I thought my stuff was a lot better than it actually was.  I look back now at the stuff I was producing just a year ago and find it to be unreadable dreck.


Which is true of just about every writer. Even those who followed lists of rules.


> So, take someone who wants to be a writer.  He reads a lot of fiction and says, "Okay, I want to write like my favorite author."
> 
> He produces what he thinks is something similar to what his favorite author would write, but, in actuality, what he's produced is complete unreadable dreck.  The worst part is that he probably never even realizes how bad it is.  He publishes the book, and no one ever buys it.


Again, an oversimplification. Seeing how other authors have done it is merely a starting point. A lot of writers have started out copying their favorite authors, looked at their writing and saw they were just a cheap imitation of whoever they were copying, then started making changes until they were no longer an imitation. That's how they developed their own voice and style. 

I look at these lists of rules and sometimes I see something that makes sense. Other times I see things that I just totally disagree with. Two examples are the rules against adverbs and description. I see no reason not to use a part of speech, and as a reader I have no problem with them popping up in a story. As a reader, I want to know what a character looks like. I love the descriptions James Silke wrote in his sword and sorcery books. They did a perfect job of putting me in his world, and I can't imagine why an author would not want to do that for the reader. Louis L'amour gave wonderful descriptions of landscapes. He put the reader in the old west. Even though I've never been on a cattle drive or ridden the lonely canyons of Utah, I feel like I have after reading one of his stories. The feeling I'm left with is not that I've read about the event or place, but that I was actually there. I have to stop and remember, "Oh, wait. I didn't really do that." That's the experience I want to give the reader. This is done through description. So I know the rule of avoiding description is wrong, at least for the types of stories I like to read and the ones I want to write. Judging from the adverbs and descriptions I see in published works - often by people well known in the genre - there are a lot of authors and readers who feel the same way. So when I see a rule that says never use adverbs or avoid description, I know it's b.s. One of Bisson's rules was to have no fights in a short story. Apparently Robert E. Howard and Louis L'amour never got that memo, because both of them have published an awful lot of short stories, and almost all of them (if not all of them) had fights. L'amour is still one of the top selling authors in the Western genre even though he's been dead for 26 years. I think it's safe to say he knew what he was doing. He knew what kind of story he wanted to tell, and he knew his audience and the kinds of stories they liked. So, again, this tells me Bisson's rule is wrong. There are times when it is good to have a fight in your story. It depends on a number of factors. Readers of westerns or sword and sorcery want fights. 

The problem of having all these lists of rules is that a beginning writer finds them and thinks, "All right, if I follow these rules I'll have a good story. After all, that's what this author did." He follows them and ends up with dreck, but he doesn't know it's dreck. People tell him it's dreck, but he thinks, "It can't possibly be dreck. I followed all the rules." See how that can work? Any approach can be oversimplified, and the results are the same.

You learn to write pretty much the way you learn any other skill - by screwing up a lot.

Like I said earlier, the right answer is whatever works. If following a list of rules works for you then, by all means, have at it.


----------



## Philip Overby (Apr 30, 2014)

I do think a major issue is this idea that one's writing is never good enough because it's not ________ or it doesn't follow rule _____. I've reached the point where I'm comfortable with where I'm at as a writer. Does that mean I don't want to improve? No. It just means I have my style that I like and I understand some people won't like it. I developed my style more from reading and writing than I have from reading lists of rules or writing books. Although I have learned methods I like, I adapt them to work for me. Again, I believe there's too much focus on every person loving your writing rather than completing work and putting it out in the world for people to enjoy or hate. 

This doesn't mean I've soured on craft, it's just I see so many writers never pull the trigger because they want everything to be perfect. It will never be perfect. When you read it one year from now you'll say, "I wish I would have changed _____." 

The best way to learn is to fail. There is only one chance to make a good first impression, so do all your failures behind doors. Once you fail at writing a number of times, you'll hit the one story that makes you go "Hey, this is great." That's when you're ready to share with the world. But again, there will be people that hate it. So it goes.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 30, 2014)

On the whole "rules" thing: what if it's NOT your story? When I edit for other writers, I make a variety of suggestions for improvement. In some specific cases, I look at a sentence that does not have an adverb, and I think that it would read better with an adverb in it, so that's what I suggest. It's not a matter of attachment to my story, because it's not my story--I'm just going with what sounds best to me, even if it's against "the rules."


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 30, 2014)

Guy,



> Other times I see things that I just totally disagree with. Two examples are the rules against adverbs and description. I see no reason not to use a part of speech, and as a reader I have no problem with them popping up in a story.



This is the main attitude that I find so perplexing.

Instead of reading a widely stated rule like the ones you mentioned (contrasted against what some random writer posted on a blog somewhere) and thinking about how you disagree with it, why don't you seek to understand why so many people are telling you not to do it?  To me, it just seems slightly ridiculous to say, "Hey, I know a bunch of professional editors and writers are adamant that you should..., but I, as a new writer, I think... so I'm just going to ignore their advice."

All most of us are saying is that you should first seek to understand fully the reasoning behind a "rule."  After gaining an  understanding of what benefit the rule grants you and what pitfalls not following the rule conveys, you can make an intelligent decision as to whether it is or is not worth adhering to the rule.



> The problem of having all these lists of rules is that a beginning writer finds them and thinks, "All right, if I follow these rules I'll have a good story. After all, that's what this author did." He follows them and ends up with dreck, but he doesn't know it's dreck. People tell him it's dreck, but he thinks, "It can't possibly be dreck. I followed all the rules."



The difference I've spotted is:

Self published authors who try to follow the rules tend to produce readable dreck.

Self published authors who make no attempt to follow the rules tend to produce unreadable dreck.

Granted, they both produce works that have no value, but at least a reader can get through the first set to tell them how bad the story sucked.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 30, 2014)

Who says Guy (or anyone else) doesn't understand the reasoning? One problem is misuse of the word "rule." If what you have is a concept that you want someone to understand and then follow or not follow as they see fit based on that understanding, that's not a "rule." Another problem is that most, if not all, of the rules posted by people are empirically false. If you tell someone to never use adverbs, and they've just read ten published books by professional authors that all include adverbs at some point, then your "rule" looks like nonsense to them.

People who want to expound on rules of writing would go further toward achieving their goal if they stopped pretending they've found the one true path and get away from the word "rule."


----------



## Ankari (Apr 30, 2014)

Rules are lazy. Instead of rules, they should be called "focals", and read like this: Understand active versus passive writing. Understand why active writing is generally considered stronger, except in the case when it isn't.

Understand adverbs and why they are generally avoided unless when necessary.

Understand Showing and Telling. Each has their merits, but only if used properly. (Showing is the current favorite of most authors.)

(The list continues)

No one has the responsibility to teach all new authors these focal points. I fear that is the reason why  "rules" exist. It's easier to condense considerable explanation into a short statement.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 30, 2014)

> People who want to expound on rules of writing would go further toward achieving their goal if they stopped pretending they've found the one true path and get away from the word "rule."



Steerpike,

On one hand, I get your point.

 On the other hand, I can't help but think that, if one refuses to take good advice just because they disagree with the presentation of that advice, that's their problem.  It's like you're saying this:

Author comes across a great idea that could help others and so posts it on his blog as a new rule.  You advocate responding by saying, "Sorry, I completely reject your advice because you called it a rule."

Seems to me that, if the advice really is helpful, that you're hurting yourself a lot more than you're hurting the blogger.  Truthfully, that attitude comes across to me as kinda silly.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 30, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> On the other hand, I can't help but think that, if one refuses to take good advice just because they disagree with the presentation of that advice, that's their problem.



Except I never said this. You may wish to pretend I said it, or that others advocate it, to further your point, but it's just not the case. 

What it appears to me is that you want to be able to cite rules to writers without having them questioned or without having to provide any rationale for citing them (in fact, when I have previously suggested that a person providing a critique needs to think about what they're reading, whether a given rule is appropriate, and use some rationale in deciding whether or not to cite a rule, you objected to that idea).

Blind parroting of rules-that-aren't-rules to beginning writers doesn't do them an ounce of good.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 30, 2014)

Ankari said:


> No one has the responsibility to teach all new authors these focal points. I fear that is the reason why  "rules" exist. It's easier to condense considerable explanation into a short statement.



That's the reason they exist. The problem is, neither the people who parrot them nor some percentage of the people who receive them appear to understand that they're a short-hand for everything you mentioned.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 30, 2014)

Ankari said:


> Instead of rules, they should be called "focals"....


Recently, I've taken to referring to these as "techniques" or "methods" where I used to say rules. For me, in my writing they are rules because I adhere to them with rare exception. 

However, when discussing someone else's art it seems more appropriate when asked for advice to say something like, "Here's a technique I use". It may seem silly to some but, as writers, we know words are important. A technique can be experimented with, used, or discarded. A rule must be followed. 

We talk about about adverbs a lot here. I'm a proponent of limited adverb use, if not outright exclusion. However, that's an INDIVIDUAL RULE that leads to MY STYLE. It's a technique for anyone asking for my advice. Anyone who has used me as a critique partner (there are a few in this thread) understands I don't review another's work under the microscope of my personal writing rules (that wasn't always my way). Now, I'd never outline another writer's adverb usage unless it was a major problem. 

For example, if the adverb usage was overwhelming and verbose, say one in every thirty or so words, I would point it out. Or, if there was an extreme dependence on telling and not enough showing because the writing is heavily adverbial, I'd point that out as a place to consider for improvement. Even then, I try to be clear I'm offering suggestions based off my experience & those suggestions are merely offerings for experimentation. They aren't some "one true way".

Most of my more experienced writing partners don't need that kind of attention though. They have developed a set of their own rules, techniques they employ & methods which work well for their art. They are different than mine & the product differs as a result. Thank god for that....


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 30, 2014)

Steerpike,

You said:



> One problem is misuse of the word "rule." If what you have is a concept that you want someone to understand and then follow or not follow as they see fit based on that understanding, that's not a "rule."



Though you didn't directly say that advice should be rejected due to the use of the word "rule," you do go through the trouble of calling out the issue that the word "rule" is misapplied.  

My response, imo, is certainly a reasonable continuation of your argument regarding semantics.  Speaking of which, if that's not what you believe, then what exactly was your point in bringing up the word "rule?"



> What it appears to me is that you want to be able to cite rules to writers without having them questioned or without having to provide any rationale for citing them



Huh?

Did you read this:



> All most of us are saying is that you should first seek to understand fully the reasoning behind a "rule." After gaining an understanding of what benefit the rule grants you and what pitfalls not following the rule conveys, you can make an intelligent decision as to whether it is or is not worth adhering to the rule.



How is that statement, a sentiment I've expressed numerous times in this thread, in any way indicative of "not questioning" rules?

What I'm advocating is giving rules their due consideration.  There is a valid reason for "no adverbs."  If one understands that valid reason and decides to use an adverb any way, I have absolutely no problem with that.  I'm simply advocating that one fully understand the reasoning before rejecting the advice.

I'm not sure why in the world that position is in any way controversial.



> in fact, when I have previously suggested that a person providing a critique needs to think about what they're reading, whether a given rule is appropriate, and use some rationale in deciding whether or not to cite a rule, you objected to that idea



My recollection, and it's been a while since that discussion and I'm too lazy to look it up, is that my primary objection was based on the principle of responsibility.  A beta reader can only give feedback from their experience and from where they are on the learning curve.  No matter the source, it is the author's responsibility to evaluate the appropriateness of any comment.

My recollection was that you wanted to place responsibility on the beta reader, not on the author.

While a beta reader should do the best job they can, I hesitate to offer any advice like what you advocated to beta readers because I feel that it would tend to discourage the act of critiquing.



> Blind parroting of rules-that-aren't-rules to beginning writers doesn't do them an ounce of good.



Let's say that I decide to write a blog post to a generic newb telling them how to get started.  I'd say that, in general, start by doing the following:

1. Be clear in your writing.
2. Show instead of Tell.
3. Lots of Tension.

I think that, if a newb can start with those three pieces of advice, it sets the foundation for getting their writing to a level where they can start getting productive feedback.   I think that advice is incredibly helpful.

What is the alternative advice that you'd offer?


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 30, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> Let's say that I decide to write a blog post to a generic newb telling them how to get started.  I'd say that, in general, start by doing the following:
> 
> 1. Be clear in your writing.
> 2. Show instead of Tell.
> 3. Lots of Tension.



If you're saying _in general_, then you're not setting forth a rule, are you? It doesn't look like we have any disagreement. I don't have any problem with advice being offered as a matter of personal opinion or (when the beta reader can be bothered) as a result of a reasoned analysis of a work. I simply pointed out that calling something is rule is inaccurate if you believe what we both seem to believe - that the advice can be considered and then used or discarded as the author sees fit.

I'm not sure why you went to the trouble of creating a straw man to attack, but if in fact your view is in line with what I've just stated above, then we're on the same page after all


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 30, 2014)

> I'm not sure why you went to the trouble of creating a straw man to attack, but if in fact your view is in line with what I've just stated above, then we're on the same page after all



Steerpike,

I'm glad we're on the same page.

I really have no idea as to the straw man issue.  It truly bothers me that advice would be ignored based on how it's presented instead of based on its content.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 30, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> Steerpike,
> 
> I'm glad we're on the same page.
> 
> I really have no idea as to the straw man issue.  It truly bothers me that advice would be ignored based on how it's presented instead of based on its content.



When you call something a rule, it is both content and presentation though, right? "Rule" has a definition, so it's not just a matter of presentation, it carries with it the meaning and definition of the word.

If someone tells a new writer (or not-new writer) they have a "rule" for them to follow, the writer receiving the advice should ignore any portion of the advice that claims the advice constitutes a rule, but that doesn't mean they should discount the rest of it.

If you tell someone "Here's a rule: never use adverbs." They should say "bollocks to your rule" but still be willing to look at their adverb usage to see if their work could stand improvement. If they have a critiquer who understands that the admonition against adverbs isn't an inviolate rule, but rather advice meant to counter a lot of bad adverb usage, then the critiquer might even provide reasoning as to why the adverbs aren't working for a writer. Which brings up another problem with people who tend to view these things as rules: if you think you're dealing with an absolute rule, then a rationale is never needed. You just need to say "cut all adverbs," or "show don't tell." It's the easy way out for the reviewer, because since they are reciting rules they don't actually have to think about what they're reading.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 30, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> When you call something a rule, it is both content and presentation though, right? "Rule" has a definition, so it's not just a matter of presentation, it carries with it the meaning and definition of the word.
> 
> If someone tells a new writer (or not-new writer) they have a "rule" for them to follow, the writer receiving the advice should ignore any portion of the advice that claims the advice constitutes a rule, but that doesn't mean they should discount the rest of it.
> 
> If you tell someone "Here's a rule: never use adverbs." They should say "bollocks to your rule" but still be willing to look at their adverb usage to see if their work could stand improvement. If they have a critiquer who understands that the admonition against adverbs isn't an inviolate rule, but rather advice meant to counter a lot of bad adverb usage, then the critiquer might even provide reasoning as to why the adverbs aren't working for a writer. Which brings up another problem with people who tend to view these things as rules: if you think you're dealing with an absolute rule, then a rationale is never needed. You just need to say "cut all adverbs," or "show don't tell." It's the easy way out for the reviewer, because since they are reciting rules they don't actually have to think about what they're reading.



Current usage of the word "rule" on blogs and news sites is "Ten Rules for Managing Your Money"  "Ten Rules for Winning the Affection of Your Crush"  "Ten Rules for..."

Am I seriously supposed to think, "Wow, if I want to win my crushes affection, I absolutely must..."?

Given the environment of the internet and the usage of the word "rule" on it, I think it is the height of silliness to make the complaint you're making.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 30, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> Given the environment of the internet and the usage of the word "rule" on it, I think it is the height of silliness to make the complaint you're making.



This attitude doesn't astound me.


----------



## Guy (Apr 30, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> Guy,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, it's because I see a bunch of successful writers violating the rule, openly, flagrantly and frequently.


----------



## Guy (Apr 30, 2014)

Philip Overby said:


> I do think a major issue is this idea that one's writing is never good enough because it's not ________ or it doesn't follow rule _____. I've reached the point where I'm comfortable with where I'm at as a writer. Does that mean I don't want to improve? No. It just means I have my style that I like and I understand some people won't like it. I developed my style more from reading and writing than I have from reading lists of rules or writing books. Although I have learned methods I like, I adapt them to work for me. Again, I believe there's too much focus on every person loving your writing rather than completing work and putting it out in the world for people to enjoy or hate.
> 
> This doesn't mean I've soured on craft, it's just I see so many writers never pull the trigger because they want everything to be perfect. It will never be perfect. When you read it one year from now you'll say, "I wish I would have changed _____."
> 
> The best way to learn is to fail. There is only one chance to make a good first impression, so do all your failures behind doors. Once you fail at writing a number of times, you'll hit the one story that makes you go "Hey, this is great." That's when you're ready to share with the world. But again, there will be people that hate it. So it goes.



Indeed, suh.


----------



## Philip Overby (Apr 30, 2014)

In my splatter-elf thesis (or the rules I posted on April Fool's) I suggested actually using more adverbs. The more adverbs the better. Who knows, maybe a couple of years from now, the style will be to use crap loads of adverbs all the time. Readers ultimately decide these things, not writers. If readers say, "I don't care about adverbs as long as it's a good story" then it doesn't really matter. 

I think observing what current successful and published writers that you like are doing (or writers who have styles that have survived time like Tolkien) is your best bet. Styles are developed better that way in my opinion. Rules can help supplement that, but aren't completely necessary.


----------



## Mythopoet (May 1, 2014)

Philip Overby said:


> I think observing what current successful and published writers that you like are doing (or writers who have styles that have survived time like Tolkien) is your best bet. Styles are developed better that way in my opinion. Rules can help supplement that, but aren't completely necessary.



I agree. It is far, FAR better to study actual works of fiction than to read lists of rules.


----------



## Philip Overby (May 1, 2014)

Guy said:


> No, it's because I see a bunch of successful writers violating the rule, openly, flagrantly and frequently.



This has been brought up before as well and I think it's true. I'm currently reading _The Name of the Wind_ for our Reading Group here on Mythic Scribes. Rothfuss uses adverbs (meaning mostly "-ly" versions) now and again. Not once has it jerked me out of the story and I've said, "Wait, both Stephen King and Elmore Leonard said don't use adverbs!" While I admire both of those writers and have learned a lot from reading them, I don't tend to want to follow any one rule anymore. When I write an adverb or use passive voice I now say, "Is there a better way I could say this?" If the answer is yes, then I change it. If the answer is, maybe no, then I leave it. 

My feeling is that if you want your writing to come out a certain way, read a lot and write a lot. Even without reading any rules, you'll start to see things take shape. The dialogue may become more natural, the characters more real. Words are just words. Story supersedes words. If the story is awesome, minor issues are going to fade in the background (hopefully).


----------



## BWFoster78 (May 1, 2014)

Guy said:


> No, it's because I see a bunch of successful writers violating the rule, openly, flagrantly and frequently.



So, Guy, what's your takeaway from that?

One author says not to do something; another author effectively does what the other author said not to.  Is your reaction:

A) Well, the practice is different from the advice, so I should completely ignore the advice and use all the adverbs that I want.

B) Try to develop an understanding of why adverb usage is considered suboptimal so that you will gain an understanding of when you can effectively use them.

As far as I can tell, your answer is A,  I feel that answering A limits/slows development of writing skill.  It does absolutely nothing to move you along the learning curve.

B, on the other hand, gives you additional knowledge that you can use.  This answer does move you along the learning curve.

It's the attitude of dismissing advice without trying to consider why the advice was given that I find so maddening.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 1, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> I agree. It is far, FAR better to study actual works of fiction than to read lists of rules.



I read a lot. I study works I love. I like reading rule lists. They're all part of my education.  

What I've come to understand regarding rule lists is they pertain to that author alone. There may be something in there I want to practice. If I like the result, it goes in my toolbox. If not, I forget about it.  

These are "Terry Bisson's Rules for Writing". Just his, for his art. They aren't "Terry Bisson's Rules of Writing for all Authors".  

It doesn't make sense to approach an author's personal rule list as if they're trying to force their vision upon each of us. If that is indeed the case however, then I completely agree with the dissent. More often though, I notice complaints around rule lists where people only "think" rules are being forced upon them.

Look at the last two on this list:
59. Ignore these rules at your peril.
60. Peril is the SF short story writer's accomplice, adversary, and friend.

It's obvious to me he's having a bit if fun by saying "Follow these rules for creating a great short story. If you don't follow them all, you're doing exactly what you need to do."


----------



## Mythopoet (May 1, 2014)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> These are "Terry Bisson's Rules for Writing". Just his, for his art. They aren't "Terry Bisson's Rules of Writing for all Authors".
> 
> It doesn't make sense to approach an author's personal rule list as if they're trying to force their vision upon each of us. If that is indeed the case however, then I completely agree with the dissent. More often though, I notice complaints around rule lists where people only "think" rules are being forced upon them.



This thread is called "Terry Bisson's Rules for Writing SFF short stories." But Terry Bisson's actually blog post is called "60 Rules for Short SF (and Fantasy)" and the introductory paragraph says "Here are the rules for the SF (or Fantasy) short story". Not "here are the rules I hold myself to" or "here are the rules that I find work for me". *The* rules. 

That's what I object to.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 1, 2014)

Read the edited add-on to my post. The last two "rules".

Do you still think he believes you need to adhere to what he does to write a great short story?

I totally understand rebelling against someone who's trying to force their will upon your vision. That's just not the case here & it's often not the case in lists fashioned by famous authors. 

When we see posts like "Elmore Leonard's Rules for Writing", it's delivered with the possessive, as in "belonging to Elmore Leonard", yet people still act as if his vision is being forced upon them. It's not. Only you can do that.

Where we do see the absolutist mentality where people say "Do this, not that", is more often in the camp of aspiring authors & part-time bloggers, or where people rework the personal writing rules of a more successful author. In those cases, I understand the contempt.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.


----------



## Mythopoet (May 1, 2014)

As I think I've made clear in many of my posts on this subject, my objection isn't about what an author _means_ when he writes up a list of rules as much as it is about what he _says_. Because unless he _says_ "these rules are just my personal rules and you should take them or leave them as they work for you" or some such there are a lot of beginning writers who _will_ take them for real rules that shouldn't be broken. 

I feel somewhat protective of those poor, ignorant writers because I used to hang around a lot of their blogs once and liked a lot of them, but when it came to learning the writing craft, many were all too eager to jump on all the rules as if they were life preservers that would float them right to the Big Pubs' doors. Now you can sit back and say "well, they should know better" and that may be true, but the fact is that too many of them _don't_. And if a writer's goal in writing such lists of rules and advice is to help other, newer writers then they really need to be more clear about the context of the "rules" they put forth. (I think, for example, that fantasy writer Patricia Wrede gives out fantastic advice and is always very clear that all writers and stories are different. I love to read her blog even when I don't necessarily agree with her.)

As professional writers I expect them to mean what they say and say what they mean. I don't think that's too much to expect.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 1, 2014)

I get where you're coming from. Really, I do. Words are important. If we don't believe that, we shouldn't be writers.

Still, I feel the stance of protecting other, less experienced, or fledgling writers, diminishes their intelligence. Most writers, in my opinion, are of above average intelligence. They have the ability to form their own determinations and will naturally come to their own choice of style over time. Much of that is done through emulation, one way or another. Beyond emulation, most grow through experimentation. At least that's been my experience.


----------



## Mythopoet (May 1, 2014)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Still, I feel the stance of protecting other, less experienced, or fledgling writers, diminishes their intelligence. Most writers, in my opinion, are of above average intelligence. They have the ability to form their own determinations and will naturally come to their own choice of style over time. Much of that is done through emulation, one way or another. Beyond emulation, most grow through experimentation. At least that's been my experience.



If that's all true, and I'm not saying it's not, what's the point of more experienced writers giving advice at all? What's the point of writing lists of rules? You can't emulate a list of rules. You emulate an author's actual creative work.


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 1, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> A) Well, the practice is different from the advice, so I should completely ignore the advice and use all the adverbs that I want.
> 
> B) Try to develop an understanding of why adverb usage is considered suboptimal so that you will gain an understanding of when you can effectively use them.



What thing could another writer say to you that, despite their not agreeing to personally stop using adverbs, would cause you to believe that they are taking approach B? So far, it seems like you're interpreting everyone in this thread who's said they think adverbs can be useful as A), and refusing to accept any claim they make towards B).


----------



## BWFoster78 (May 1, 2014)

Feo Takahari said:


> What thing could another writer say to you that, despite their not agreeing to personally stop using adverbs, would cause you to believe that they are taking approach B? So far, it seems like you're interpreting everyone in this thread who's said they think adverbs can be useful as A), and refusing to accept any claim they make towards B).



Feo,

Guy, to whom the post you quoted was directed, said this:



> Two examples are the rules against adverbs and description. I see no reason not to use a part of speech, and as a reader I have no problem with them popping up in a story.



By saying, "I see no reason not to use a part of speech," is he not clearly indicating that he does not understand why authors are telling him not to use this particular part of speech?  If he clearly does not understand why not to use it and is throwing out the advice, is he not basically following B above?

So, in direct answer to your question: I believe that Guy (again, the direct person to whom I directed the post) quite specifically spelled out that he was following approach B when it comes to adverb use.

Is my interpretation of what he said unreasonable?

EDIT: Note that had he said, "I understand that authors tell you not to use adverbs for these reasons (or, in lieu of actually listing anything, stated anything at all that led me to believe that he had such an understanding), but I feel differently," I would not have had a problem with it.  Again, not sure why that stance is controversial...


----------



## Ravana (May 1, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> One author says not to do something; another author effectively does what the other author said not to.  Is your reaction:
> 
> A) Well, the practice is different from the advice, so I should completely ignore the advice and use all the adverbs that I want.
> 
> B) Try to develop an understanding of why adverb usage is considered suboptimal so that you will gain an understanding of when you can effectively use them.



What he said.

But, hey, why not make the first one even more emphatic? How about this:

A.2) Because I see a bunch of successful writers violating a rule, openly, flagrantly and frequently, I should violate that rule as well.

Guess what? You've just written yourself a rule.

Note that it specifies that you should _violate_ the rule, not merely _ignore_ it. After all, if you're trying to emulate the success of these authors, you'll want to do what they do, and since you've specifically cited their violations of rules, you ought to do the same. And in fact this might work in your favor… _if_ you know what the "rule" in question is, _if_ you can identify how, when and most importantly why they violate it where they do, and _if_ you can take that insight and apply it to your own writing. It's the old advice: you need to know the rules before you can break them.

Before you enter that one into your personal canon, you might wish to devote some thought to the following question:

How many successful authors do you see who _don't_ violate the rule openly, flagrantly and/or frequently? 

Whatever "rule," or set thereof, that might be. Have you really performed a quantitative study to determine which techniques are most successful, most broadly used, most often "violated," and to what extent when they are? Have you done this even for a single author who you see "violating" whatever "rules" are your personal pet peeves, to know how frequently that author violates said rules, and how frequently he does _not_?

Those are rhetorical questions, of course: you haven't. 

Consider it a challenge.

Don't tell me that, for instance, Rowling (or whoever*) uses adverbs, so they must be okay. Tell me the _percentage_ of sentences in which she uses adverbs. Which will also yield the percentage in which she does _not_. Tell me how _many_ adverbs appear in any given sentence when they crop up.

Then do this for another author you admire–their writing style or their financial success, whichever it is that prompts your admiration. And another. Et cetera. Be sure to include authors who are successful but whose writing style you don't admire if you wish to obtain valid data on which techniques lead to those results.

Then tell me that you actually _want_ to write the way Rowling does–that you don't believe an occasional adverb deletion might improve her writing–and aren't simply throwing her up as an example of a successful author who "violates the rules." If that's your goal, great: go for it. By that point, you will understand what you're doing and will be doing it deliberately. Though you might wish to consider your target audience while you're at it. What works in children's literature may not work nearly as well in other contexts.

-

I would point out that the "anti-rule" people appear to hold an opinion that the "rules are useful" people do not, and furthermore tend to project that opinion on the latter. That opinion is taking general rules as if they were absolutes. Those of us who find "rules" useful do _not_ hold this opinion, and it should not be projected upon us.

There isn't a single "rules are useful" person here who has endorsed the notion of, for example, "no adverbs," anywhere in this thread, nor would they. I have never even _seen_ a rule expressed as "don't use adverbs–period." No responsible author or editor would ever say this. Authors are enjoined to _avoid_ adverbs, to _limit_ their use… and for good reason: beginners have a marked tendency to use them at every opportunity. Which makes for _lousy_ writing. In many cases, beginning writers pad their work with adverbs (and other items) simply to increase their word count, since that's the basis upon which they are paid: the more words, the better, right? Well, not if the story gets rejected for being purple-prose tripe, it doesn't.

Ideally, they are also told the _why_ behind the rule, and how to amend their writing to improve it. This does not merely involve the deletion of adverbs–though for a beginning writer, trying this makes a good exercise, to demonstrate how many of them constitute unnecessary verbiage. It involves identifying what the author thinks the adverb is _accomplishing_, and seeing if the same thing couldn't be accomplished by, say, using a more precise verb which renders the adverb redundant and thus a candidate for deletion. Or realizing that the adverb is already redundant given the rest of the context, as is often the case. Or that it is a superfluous piling on, as with most instances of word "very," for example.

So beginners are told that this is a significant problem they need to be wary of. And since this is such a significant, and common, problem, and since beginners are probably unaccustomed to reading their own work critically, they are told this in direct and emphatic fashion: a simple rule they can remember. Once they have learned to apply the general principle, then they can pass on to more subtle gradings. Once a text has been pruned of redundancies and refined by more precise vocabulary, what adverbs remain will probably be unobjectionable.

While adverbs tend to bear the brunt of criticism–since they are the more often gratuitous–the same advice applies to adjectives: see if you can't come up with a more precise noun which renders the adjective superfluous. If you can't, fine. But it's worth the effort.

See Mr. Twain's rules #13 and #14.

Even this is but a single example of a "rule"… one which probably receives more attention than it deserves. Most authors who've practiced their craft for any length of time have long since internalized this one–and apply it, automatically and unconsciously, and when they do use adverbs they are well aware of it, and why, and genuinely _do_ avoid using them where they would be gratuitous or redundant. There are plenty of other "rules" which might be profitably discussed, should anyone be growing tired of this one. (Bisson's, or anyone else's… note that Bisson doesn't mention adverbs on his list at all. He assumes people reading his rules are well past that point, and is focusing on a far more narrow aspect of the craft.)

-

I would also point out that none of the "rules are useful" people has anywhere deprecated the necessity of reading, both broadly and in depth, as the core of the craft. No one is ever going to learn to write well from a set of rules alone… though, honestly, I can't imagine anyone _wanting_ to write without having ever read anything, so any such argument borders on being a straw man. It is _possible_ to learn to write well through reading alone, without conscious consideration of "rules"–the word "conscious" is an important one here: it isn't possible to write, period, let alone well, without having first internalized a vast number of rules, even if these are only ever applied unconsciously. The utility of list of rules is to bring the myriad facets of the craft to the writer's _conscious_ consideration, and to introduce new facets the writer might never have noticed or perhaps even encountered otherwise. 

Which is why I always take seriously lists of "rules" such as the present one: that chance at a "Wow, I never thought of that" moment. 

-



> It's the attitude of dismissing advice without trying to consider why the advice was given that I find so maddening.



Again, what he said.

---

* Disclaimer: I can't recall who all has mentioned Rowling, only that her name came up in the discussion. Wanted to make sure I'm not being unfair to anyone here by implying that any given commenter had her in mind.

P.S. Go ahead. Count the number of adverbs in this post. I don't mind. I know why I used them, each and every one.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 1, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> If that's all true, and I'm not saying it's not, what's the point of more experienced writers giving advice at all? What's the point of writing lists of rules? You can't emulate a list of rules. You emulate an author's actual creative work.



What I said was most writers learn through: 
1) Emulation 
2) Experimentation  

In the case of #2, I myself have learned a great deal from reading lists and experimenting with a particular writer's personal rules. I know many writers who would say the same. So yes, you emulate someone's work or voice...you experiment with techniques or concepts, some if which may be written in a list of rules.  

I have my own list own rules, completely stolen from other lists. I'd never share it without a request because I don't have any more success to hang my hat on than most aspiring writers. That and, like I said, it's all stolen goods. Still, these are principles and techniques which, over time, have combined into the writing style I've chosen.   

An example from Elmore Leonard's list that made it onto mine, verbatim: 

-Never modify the word "said".  

If I look at scribblings I wrote years ago, I modified "said" all the time. After reading Leonard's rule, I read more on the topic. I studied a few examples. Then, I put it into practice, forcing myself away from "said modifiers". In the end, I liked the result. It read cleaner, in my opinion, and brought me closer to the vision I have for my own writing. It's now in my toolbox. Must it go into yours? Nope, we're different artists.


----------



## Ravana (May 1, 2014)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Never modify the word "said".



Yep. Been there, done that. My personal response has been twofold. 

First: replacing "said" with another verb which reflects the desired modifier. Thing is, that also is a violation of a not uncommon (sub)rule, based on claims that the word "said" is essentially invisible–whereas replacing it with something else is not–so you shouldn't bother breaking out your thesaurus in attempt to avoid it. That's one I don't fully buy into, so plus one for rules haterz. On the other hand, I reached this conclusion after applying critical consideration to it… so plus one for rules friendz. (Yes, I just made that word up.  ) 

The _reason_ for the "just use 'said'" rule is that replacing it can itself create problems, as authors bombard the reader with synonyms for the sole sake of variety–_not_ more precise vocabulary that reflects both the saying and the manner thereof. That much, I _do_ agree with… so plus one more for the friendz. I doubt I ever would have reached this insight had someone not presented an explicit case for this particular style point, forcing me to consider it.

Second: removing the "said" clause altogether. As long as the surrounding context can keep it clear to the reader who's saying what, it's superfluous. In the process of doing this, I've often ended up enriching that context, resulting in a double gain for the story.

_That's_ what a "rule" can do for you… if you approach it correctly.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 1, 2014)

Ravana said:


> That's what a "rule" can do for you… if you approach it correctly.


Yes, and that approach would be an example of how these lists can be helpful, which is what I hoped to illustrate. 

I'm not trying to argue that anyone else beside myself should follow this particular rule though. I offered it as an example from my experience... another's rule that I assimilated, nothing more. Whether anyone else adheres to it, or experiments with the principle is for each individual to decide.


----------



## Guy (May 1, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> So, Guy, what's your takeaway from that?
> 
> One author says not to do something; another author effectively does what the other author said not to.  Is your reaction:
> 
> ...


False dichotomy. If you stopped oversimplifying, you'd probably see the points people are making. I answered these questions in a previous post. One of my main points is that a lot of this is genre or audience specific. If a writer says, "Never do _____________" and your audience obviously wants you to do ______________, then you'd be an absolute fool to follow that writer's advice. Do I really need to point out how stupid it would be for erotica writers to follow a rule that says you should never portray sex? 

Did you not see where I wrote that if I found the rule reasonable I followed it? Maybe I looked at why a writer had a rule, found the reason wanting and chose not to follow it. Or maybe his rule worked for his audience, genre, or style but wouldn't for mine. I see no reason why I should surrender my judgement and do something just because somebody said I should. A writer may be successful but none of them are infallible.

Has the author written the type of story I like? If so, he can post his advice, but it would be superfluous. I can read his story and clearly see how he does it. If the author has written the type of story I don't like, why would I want to take his advice? So that I, too, can write stories I don't like? Successful writers are very good at writing the types of stories they want to tell... but those might not be the types of stories I want to tell. 


> It's the attitude of dismissing advice without trying to consider why the advice was given


You're assuming I didn't consider that.


> that I find so maddening.


Why? It's got nothing to do with you. Use whatever method you like. I don't care. Why the obsession with other people's methods?


----------

