Bad Writing Advice

[Rinzei]

While we're having good fun ripping on "Show, Don't Tell" in another thread, I can see where your teacher was coming from. Which do you think is the more dynamic line?

Hm, that's a good point. It may be then that the advice wasn't bad, but wasn't properly explained? Because he did let out a frightening scream during his example - which lead the group of 12-year-olds to think they should show through dialogue, not through vivid description. Saying that, he was more of a drama teacher than literature, so he was inclined more towards that? I can only speculate.

 

[Chessie]

What's the worst writing advice you've ever received? Did following this advice really derail you or did not following this advice really propel you forward?

Oh goodness, when I was told to make my magic more realistic and explainable, like Tolkien did. Um...magic is mysterious and wondrous, not about to take the fun out of it. Also, Tolkien didn't give an explanation for his magic so that person was full of it. The comment made me laugh.

 

[The Dark One]

Hi guys,

Yes I agree there is a time for publishing and you can do it too early. But personally for me I think that over a year spent getting rejection letters was long enough. I admire those who can sit longer and wait for letter after letter, half of which never even came (I think I got 18 or 19 replies back from nearly 40 sent out) but I couldn't do it. Maybe my tolerance is low. However the one thing I can say is that in all that time spent sending out queries, I learned nothing about writing. Not from that anyway.

I refer to my earlier points about the importance of rejection in forcing you to become a better writer, but a further point...

When I finally got a novel accepted after 13 years of trying, it wasn't just a matter of signing a contract and the book being published a few months later. There was 18 months worth of draft and redraft, working with four different editors until the publisher was satisfied the book was in a fit state to grace the shelves. It took me 13 years of learning my craft, three unpublished novels before it, a fourth novel which I thought was easily good enough to go...and the publisher says: yes, I love the raw product but there is a heap of work to do before it's really good enough to charge people actual money for.

I wonder how many self-publishers go through anything like this level of refinement before putting their stuff out there? I learned so much about writing by going through that difficult (and occasionally humiliating) process and now my next book will be even better again. And yet again it's gone through about 15 major drafts and over 100 revisions before a publisher was ready to commit to it. This is the level of perfection required for a commercial publisher to be interested (in my stuff at least) and quite frankly, I suspect that most self publishers don't realise that these are the kind of lengths they need to go to, to be taken seriously by the publishing world.

If you publish stuff that isn't ready, not only will it delay your learning trajectory, it will damage your reputation.

It takes years to become a decent writer. No doubt there are exceptions, but so few exceptions that it probably qualifies as a rule.

 

[PaulineMRoss]

...it's gone through about 15 major drafts and over 100 revisions before a publisher was ready to commit to it. This is the level of perfection required for a commercial publisher to be interested (in my stuff at least) and quite frankly, I suspect that most self publishers don't realise that these are the kind of lengths they need to go to, to be taken seriously by the publishing world.

15 'major' drafts? I do find it odd in an art form like writing that someone can come in and tell the artist to make major changes. Eliminating typos and grammatical errors is one thing, but structural changes - no. I'd far rather have my fantasy raw and passionate, straight from the creative mind of the author, than tinkered with by an editor. But that's just me.

As for the rest of your post, I'd make two points. Firstly, there's no such thing as perfection. Well, almost. In umpteen years of reading, I've encountered only a tiny number of books I'd regard as perfect. You might find it in a novella or short story, and certainly in poetry, where every word is measured. In a novel, it's pointless even to think about it. By all means polish and hone and tinker, but there comes a point where improvements are too marginal to be worth the effort. In my opinion.

Secondly, it may surprise you to know that the majority of self-publishers don't give a tinker's cuss about being taken seriously by the publishing world. That's because they deal directly with their readers, and publishers are irrelevant to that. And yes, many of them do know what needs to be done to put out a professionally presented book, because they're already doing it. Self-publishing isn't a guarantee of low quality, just as being commercially published isn't a guarantee of high quality.

 

[Feo Takahari]

15 'major' drafts? I do find it odd in an art form like writing that someone can come in and tell the artist to make major changes. Eliminating typos and grammatical errors is one thing, but structural changes - no. I'd far rather have my fantasy raw and passionate, straight from the creative mind of the author, than tinkered with by an editor. But that's just me.

On that note, I think the worst advice I've ever been given is to forget about editing and just write from the heart. When I write a story and then immediately post it, it almost invariably gets a negative reception. When I write it, then revise it and post it, it's as likely as not to be more disliked than liked. The stories I've written that readers largely enjoyed were ones that I bounced off at least one other person, who honestly told me in great detail what worked and what didn't.

In a larger view, many of the worst writers I've ever read thought they didn't need editors. They got a lickspittle or three to tell them they were perfect and they didn't need to change anything they were doing, and everyone else who tried to read their stories just threw up their hands in disgust. Even famous writers like Anne Rice turn everything they touch to garbage when they try to go it alone--lesser writers like Tim Buckley never had a chance when they got arrogant.

 

[Weaver]

One of my most hated....

"Write what you know."

I'm sorry but that's just plain boring. Thankfully, it doesn't completely jive with the fantasy genre. Regardless, one of the wonderful aspects of writing is exploring the lives of others in events that would make me shudder and long for the comforts of home. That's what I want to read.... that's what I want to write. I certainly want to make events plausible. That's where research comes in.... but I don't want to live them.

I think that many people take "write what you know" to mean "write about things you have experienced personally in your regular daily life, and NOTHING ELSE." There's a word for that, though: autobiography. But try telling that to a typical high school or university English teacher...

 

[Ireth]

I think that many people take "write what you know" to mean "write about things you have experienced personally in your regular daily life, and NOTHING ELSE." There's a word for that, though: autobiography. But try telling that to a typical high school or university English teacher...

I don't think having a basis in things one is already familiar with from your day-to-day life is necessarily a bad thing, as long as that's not the entire story. My mom has a few ideas floating around for magic realism type stories, and many of her protags hold jobs that she has held in the past. One is a waiter (or possibly a cook, I can't recall), and the inciting incident in his story happens while he's on the job, where he has a nasty run-in with an electrical appliance of some kind. The story itself, as far as it's planned, doesn't focus entirely around the guy's job, but it is still of some importance.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Yeah...I certainly think you can have benefit from practical knowledge & experience. At the same time, we shouldn't limit ourselves to those aspects of our lives.

 

[Weaver]

I find what Weaver wrote above interesting.


I'm curious where this idea comes from as it seems to be more prevalent than you'd imagine. Is there marketing evidence to back this up or are people just pulling this from out of thin air?

I have no idea where it comes from. I've been told frequently that I cannot -- both am not able and am not allowed to -- write stories with female protagonists or even female 'major supporting cast' characters, because as a man I'm unable to comprehend The Way Women Think (as if every woman thinks the same way or acts the same way like some kind of hive mind).

There's a tirade about this somewhere in my blog posts about a "peer" critique I got once on a short story; I won't bore (or scare) anyone here by repeating it. (Look for the "Old Critique Dissected" posts if you're curious.)

 

[Weaver]

I don't think having a basis in things one is already familiar with from your day-to-day life is necessarily a bad thing, as long as that's not the entire story. My mom has a few ideas floating around for magic realism type stories, and many of her protags hold jobs that she has held in the past. One is a waiter (or possibly a cook, I can't recall), and the inciting incident in his story happens while he's on the job, where he has a nasty run-in with an electrical appliance of some kind. The story itself, as far as it's planned, doesn't focus entirely around the guy's job, but it is still of some importance.

Well, yes, like an author who was on his university's fencing team using that experience when writing fight scenes in traditional fantasy (just to pick an example at random). C. S. Freidman has a background in costume design; she always describes what her main characters are wearing. Steven Brust's hobby of "inventing traditional Hungarian cuisine" comes through in much of his fiction.

The thing is, those writes don't stop there. C. S. Friedman has never been to another planet. Steven Brust is human -- the kind from this world -- and so lacks direct personal knowledge of what it is like to be nonhuman. They don't limit themselves. They make stuff up.

 

[rhd]

I have no idea where it comes from. I've been told frequently that I cannot -- both am not able and am not allowed to -- write stories with female protagonists or even female 'major supporting cast' characters, because as a man I'm unable to comprehend The Way Women Think (as if every woman thinks the same way or acts the same way like some kind of hive mind).

There's a tirade about this somewhere in my blog posts about a "peer" critique I got once on a short story; I won't bore (or scare) anyone here by repeating it. (Look for the "Old Critique Dissected" posts if you're curious.)

Well, if you're part of a community and feel you're being misrepresented or part of some male fantasy stereotype, I feel it's okay to object. I don't believe all men write women badly at all, I just look on the positive side and appreciate male writers who write women well, I thought Miranda Grey's diary entries in John Fowles's The Collector were fantastic, also Aliena from Ken Follett's The Pillar's of the Earth. Any way, even if it's a villainess, it works as long as she has depth and doesn't fall into the standard seductress mould, I hate those (see what I mean by stereotype).

Worst advice from someone, "third re-write? Time to give up."----NO ****ING WAY.

 

[Weaver]

"You need to pick your genre."

While this may be sound marketing advice, it's crappy creative advice. I was writing non-fiction essays and blogging. Then I was into writing poetry. Then I was into writing sci-fi. Now I am into writing fantasy. In the future I may write Buddhist steampunk mysteries.

I write what my passion leads me to write.

I'd read a Buddhist steampunk mystery, especially if didn't have airships. ("Every story with airships is steampunk" is one of my pet peeves.)

 

[Weaver]

Well, if you're part of a community and feel you're being misrepresented or part of some male fantasy stereotype, I feel it's okay to object. I don't believe all men write women badly at all, I just look on the positive side and appreciate male writers who write women well, I thought Miranda Grey's diary entries in John Fowles's The Collector were fantastic, also Aliena from Ken Follett's The Pillar's of the Earth. Any way, even if it's a villainess, it works as long as she has depth and doesn't fall into the standard seductress mould, I hate those (see what I mean by stereotype).

Worst advice from someone, "third re-write? Time to give up."----NO ****ING WAY.

You are welcome to read my short story that prompted that comment, if you think I'm misrepresenting women or perpetrating stereotypes by writing a story with a female protagonist. It's in my portfolio here now; the title is "Finder's Fee."

 

[riderus]

I think the worst advice you can give is, "It's awesome! You should totally pursue it!" while thinking, *this is rubbish, this person's just wasting time.*

Well, there you have it, Devor; in your signature

By and by, many an artist had been told the same (''rubbish'', ''wasting time''; but on the other hand many had been told ''dragons/vampires really existed'', ''if you're persistant enough you could be able to come accross a dragon's egg, meet the dragon mother'', ''the dragon/vampire mother is really nice''...

Let nothing stop you in your inner stirring characters' conflict. A good word of advice: ''So what? it only takes practice.'' In fact, if you feel like wanted/meant to stop - just keep on writing everyone: that is if you think it's what you do best, if you feel writing's your calling.
And, don't forget to read all the six pages here, fG'ss

 

[psychotick]

Hi Dark One,

First let me say I'm in awe of the lengths you've gone to get published. It shows commitment above and beyond in my view. And Feo I agree with you, every book needs editing and I can't think of many authors who can adequately do their own. Asimov? Maybe?

But fifteen major edits by four different editors? A hundred revisions? You have two questions I think to ask yourself. First is your book still really yours? I.e. the one you started out writing. Because with so much editing, so many changes I would be worried that it has become something else. A completely different animal so to speak. And the other question would be at what point do you think you're guilding the lilly? Because if every one of these edits and revisions was necessary to improve the book it would have had to have been utter - well you get the picture - to begin with. I doubt that you think it was.

My fear would be that your editors have not been editing your book so much as they have been editing each other's edits, and that they have been editing as much for personal taste as they have been for fixing faults.

However not having seen either the original nor the final version I can't say this for certain. Only you can.

My thought would be, and I know this will be determined as much by your agent and publishers as you, find one editor you like and trust and stick with him. The first edit should be brutal, and what follows far less so as you fix the inevitable problems that arise from the editing.

However I'm glad you've found success and I admire your perserverance.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Mythopoet]

Most writing advice is terrible because it's not personal. Writing (and reading) are very personal things. What works for one writer won't work for many others. In order to avoid giving out specific advice that can't possibly apply to all writers, some writing advice is generalized and dumbed down to the point of being absolutely useless. What I truly believe is that you can't learn about writing from other writers. You can only learn about writing from immersing yourself in stories. Read and read and read and read until you have an intimate sense of how story works for you personally. Then write and write and write and write until you're able to reliably produce what you've learned from reading. Ignore the advice, avoid the writing blogs. Learn how to do it for yourself and when you're happy with the stories you are telling, don't let anyone else tell you they aren't good enough. If you love your own stories, there are surely other people out there who will as well. You just have to find them or let them find you.

 

[Devor]

Well, there you have it, Devor; in your signature

I don't understand what you mean by referring to my signature.

By and by, many an artist had been told the same (''rubbish'', ''wasting time'' . . . .

I'm lost by the rest of your post, but I do want to respond to this.

Telling someone to pursue something, if you know they will fail, is far crueler to them than telling them to quit. But that's not the only alternative to telling them it's "awesome." You could actually give them honest, thorough feedback about the work.

Honestly, in my opinion some of the worst advice going around happens when it comes to giving critiques and dealing with beta readers. The advice people give pushes towards a shallow critique and a blase relationship. Or else to nitpick a few sentences as if we could name them all.

We can learn to give solid critiques if we wanted to.

For instance, I did critiques recently for Ankari's Iron Pen challenge, and afterwards, based on the comments I was making, I jotted down the following critique rubric for judging writing style:

- Good grammar, sentence structure, and clarity.
- Scene is structured to support the important moments.
- Events are paced in a way that builds tension.
- Details create immersion.
- Language use serves to deliver on the full emotion of the story.

By talking about these five points, I can say a lot more about a person's writing style than "it's awesome," "it's rubbish," or "show, don't tell." And I can help an author walk away with a much better idea of where their writing stands so they can make their own decisions about whether to pursue it.

 

[Mythopoet]

For instance, I did critiques recently for Ankari's Iron Pen challenge, and afterwards, based on the comments I was making, I jotted down the following critique rubric for judging writing style:

- Good grammar, sentence structure, and clarity.
- Scene is structured to support the important moments.
- Events are paced in a way that builds tension.
- Details create immersion.
- Language use serves to deliver on the full emotion of the story.

By talking about these five points, I can say a lot more about a person's writing style than "it's awesome," "it's rubbish," or "show, don't tell." And I can help an author walk away with a much better idea of where their writing stands so they can make their own decisions about whether to pursue it.

It's important to remember though that you're making judgements based on your own personal preferences (except for grammar and spelling issues, which are more a copy editor's area). Whether or not the structure of the scene supports the important moments depends on the person, indeed, even which moments are the important moments is a matter of taste. Everything you listed there is subjective and personal, not elements that can be judged by an objective standard. There is no objective standard for storytelling. This is why I object strongly to most critique and story editing (as opposed to copy editing). It's one thing for a publishing company that is putting money into a book being able to say "No, this isn't something we feel is worth our investment". But any sort of critique or writer's group or individual (including agents) judging your work is doing so only based on their own taste and thus is not really a good judge of a writer's skill or effectiveness as a storyteller.

 

[Devor]

But any sort of critique or writer's group or individual (including agents) judging your work is doing so only based on their own taste and thus is not really a good judge of a writer's skill or effectiveness as a storyteller.

If you're any good as a writer you can decide whether the advice is right or not. That's what being professional is about, right?

I mean, what's the alternative? Nobody's going to tell you anything about your work and you're just going to plod along hoping to sell something - as if millions haven't tried that and failed?

Listening to a bit of feedback doesn't mean you're selling out.

 

[Scribble]

If you're any good as a writer you can decide whether the advice is right or not. That's what being professional is about, right?

I mean, what's the alternative? Nobody's going to tell you anything about your work and you're just going to plod along hoping to sell something - as if millions haven't tried that and failed?

Listening to a bit of feedback doesn't mean you're selling out.

I have to agree with you. Writing is a skill. When I was learning programming, if I had listened only to certain teachers, I would have been a terrible programmer. I learned from some what were bad practices, and from certain others what were good practices. When I needed to learn a technique, or a new programming paradigm, I went to multiple sources. I took the nuggets from each that were effective for me, and made myself better.

Writing is a craft that develops somewhere between your mind and what you produce. Nobody's mind is exactly like mine, but other people's minds are very similar to mine. Others, are very different.

A rare genius programmer might be able to learn in his own vacuum, but 99% of everyone, without feedback, would be crap.

Feedback is a dialogue, it's not just something you dump there. You need to take it intelligently to get quality, you need to find people that can help you with your writing.

In my writing group there are two people who "get me" who "get" my writing, I can take about 20% of what they tell me and it improves my work. There are others... maybe 2% of what they tell me is useful to my work, but the other 98% still broadens my awareness of my writing, and how other people approach it.