Bad Writing Advice

[Scribble]

And for anyone who thinks programming is a craft not an art, you're obviously not a programmer - an elegant sort routine is a thing of great beauty.

I am going to politely disagree. I do love an elegant routine, I waste time with elegantly formatted comments, sublime indentation... perfect C++ (now C#) styling... but if something looks too "pretty", I intuitively distrust it's sturdiness.

Legacy code gets ugly over time. It grows all these weird tendrils, odd hairy growths, code sections added to handle particular business cases and exceptions... but that's what makes it strong. If you build without craftsmanship, it may not stand the strain of time. What looked beautiful on the first version might not be the strongest. It's through tinkering, adjusting, tuning, that a software comes to maturity.

Whenever I look in to the guts of some new ERP system code, I always get an immediate shock... "Holy crap, what is all this for...?" And then, I get into the work of teasing it out, understanding the flows, breaking down the complexity, becoming it's master! Going in and making new changes without breaking the system logic, there's a part that is art, but mostly, it seems to be craftsmanship and experience.

/derail - sorry, but I don't often get to talk with fellow programmers on here!

 

[Trick]

there's a part that is art, but mostly, it seems to be craftsmanship and experience.

I am not a programmer so I may not be seeing this how you mean it but, IMHO, craftsmanship and experience produce art. If you don't believe me, find some episodes of a master wood working show and look at the finished products. Then look at what a kid in his first shop class makes. One is beautiful because it is practically perfect and the other may be beautiful because of what it represents but the first one is art.

 

[PaulineMRoss]

And now for some interesting (non-)advice from Mark Lawrence:

Mark Lawrence: Rules to Write by

Cliff Notes version: he's a discovery writer, he only writes one draft, plus a bit of basic spellchecking, but he recommends a critique group.

 

[Steerpike]

Cliff Notes version: he's a discovery writer, he only writes one draft, plus a bit of basic spellchecking, but he recommends a critique group.

That's generally how I approach things as well. So far, so good. My short stories usually remain largely unchanged after the initial draft. Longer works are more likely to be modified.

 

[Weaver]

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. ...

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.

My thoughts exactly. It isn't the editor's job to make your story into one they'd write; it's the editor's job to make your story the best that it can be as your story.

 

[Weaver]

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).

What, you mean that grammar and spelling aren't just matters of personal taste, too? I'm shocked! (Actually, I'm catching up on my weekly sarcasm quota. I hate it when someone asks me to check such things in a story -- it's what I do, after all -- and then insists that their quirky use of apostrophes to indicate plurals is 'just how i write cos i like it.')

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.

No kidding. Most people just don't care all that much about the scene at the end of chapter 8 of Sign of the Unicorn, and I thought it was a defining moment for the protagonist.

There is no objective standard for storytelling. This is why I object strongly to most critique and story editing (as opposed to copy editing).

Again with the respect for copy editors. Why are there not more writers like you?

 

[Weaver]

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.

It's getting feedback that is a dialogue that is so hard. Whenever I ask for feedback, I specifically state that I would like to know WHY the reader thinks whatever they think about the writing. Most of the time, I get nothing on that, just "I like it" or "This stinks." The why is often more useful than the what.

 

[Weaver]

Even if someone gives you generic "show don't tell" comments, or much of the other advice listed in this thread, it can still be useful.

If they cannot at least point out an example where I tell when I ought to show, I ignore such comments.

I don't trust generic advice. Most of the time, it comes from someone who didn't actually read the story in question; they just assume that everyone has a problem with whatever they pointed to, so whatever they say ought to apply to anything. I've gotten "feedback" like "First person stories are hard, maybe you should start with something else as a new writer" when the story commented on was not in first person. I'm sorry, but that kind of feedback is not valid, nor is it useful.

 

[Philip Overby]

I'm glad this thread has gotten so much attention. It appears a lot of people have been given bad advice over the years!

One interesting topic that's come up is how much editing or revision is too much. My personal take is that you should edit until you're finished. That could mean editing one time or editing dozens of times. Editing I think is kind of like cooking. You begin with a piece of chicken (your story). In order to make your dish as good as you can make it you need to add spices, apply the right heat, and maybe add some vegetables (editing.) Sometimes you may add too much and then your dish that was actually pretty good gets burnt or over-spiced (over-written or over-edited). Sometimes a friend (editor) may say "Oh, you put too much salt in this." Thankfully, as writers, we can take the "salt" out if needed. As the cook (writer), it's really up to you how your dish (story) ultimately turns out. And those customers (readers) eating it (reading it) are going to be the ultimate judges of your success.

Analogy over.

 

[The Dark One]

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.

Perfectly valid questions, with simple answers:

Only one of the editors (the last) actually touched the ms and presumed to make changes. The first three were all more in the way of editorial reports with numerous suggestions which it was my responsibility to adopt, or not. The first three were structural and tonal suggestions and the last was a tight line edit (which I still had the ability to accept or reject). Mind you, the publisher had quite a say in all this so it was always a negotiation, but that's one of the benefits of working with a small publisher - the process is more intimate than the editorial machine of the large publisher and the write retains more power.

As for gilding the lily...that's in the eye of the beholder, but I do confess I edit as I go and I was counting all the transitional versions as the first draft developed.

A further comment - it's really important to edit proofs as well as just A4 word docs. It reads so differently when in page proof form and what looked good before suddenly looks cluttered or awkward.

 

[PaulineMRoss]

My personal take is that you should edit until you're finished.

Ah, but how do you know when it's finished? Serious question. I suspect some people keep tinkering away - just one more draft...

 

[riderus]

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




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.

Any signature should be chosen carefully; Your signature to me is a clear example of how to attract people to writing. Which is good for us, the aspiring ones.

Good grammar, sentence structure, and clarity; Scene structured; Events being paced; Immersion by details; the Language use;
That is the foundation, of course, but without the great writers' sincere, original inner self-stirring struggle/rush/passion there is no good read.
And then we come to the cliche-or-not conclusion of the great writers being neurotic (but, alas, that very often - is - the case...)...

p.s.
I hope I've made myself clearer now to the rush-in-passion (this is abstract enough, I know) writing.

 

[rhd]

Just saw this great post on "Advice on Advice from Literary Greats" Brain Pickings
Don't miss the advice that Charlotte Brontë ignored.

 

[Steerpike]

Just saw this great post on "Advice on Advice from Literary Greats" Brain Pickings
Don't miss the advice that Charlotte Brontë ignored.

I like the Steinbeck quote a lot, particularly the first sentence. I think it was in my signature line for a while.

 

[Chessie]

Another thing I wanted to add is I don't find it helpful when my work is torn to shreds because of structure. Some of the worst advice has been given to me via: oh, take that word out and put in this, or I wouldn't use that phrase there, or your descriptions are this way or that, you should do this...

Its annoying. I'm going to disregard most comments related to the structure of a piece because it doesn't help me at all. The most helpful advice has come from reader emotions they felt when reading the piece. Did it bore them? Captivate them? What do they think of the characters? These little things help so much.

 

[Philip Overby]

Ah, but how do you know when it's finished? Serious question. I suspect some people keep tinkering away - just one more draft...

That could be part of the reason some writers never finish anything. Either due to abandonment or over-editing. Perhaps the key to knowing when to stop editing is having a great group of beta readers. When they say "I think this is good to go" then that should help guide your decision to stop editing. I do think it's possible to edit something into oblivion.

Like someone mentioned about Mark Lawrence, he basically writes one draft. I've heard of other writers doing this as well. Should every writer do this? No, I hope not. It works for him though. I've personally tried discovery writing only and have had mixed results.

However, if someone needs dozens of edits to make their writing work, then that's their method. Writing's like anything else: each person has their own unique way of approaching it. I believe it's good to try all sorts of techniques out there and then see which one works best. Then you can always tinker with that technique to make it work for your personal tastes.

Another thing I wanted to add is I don't find it helpful when my work is torn to shreds because of structure. Some of the worst advice has been given to me via: oh, take that word out and put in this, or I wouldn't use that phrase there, or your descriptions are this way or that, you should do this...

Its annoying. I'm going to disregard most comments related to the structure of a piece because it doesn't help me at all. The most helpful advice has come from reader emotions they felt when reading the piece. Did it bore them? Captivate them? What do they think of the characters? These little things help so much.

Chesterama: I find this helpful if I'm working on the "structure stage." If I want content feedback, I feel the same way. I don't really need nitpicking over structure, grammar or whatever unless it's incredibly distracting. The odd comment here and there doesn't bug me, but I want to know information about content first and foremost.

 

[bookmasta]

"Show, don't tell."

 

[The Dark One]

Another thing I wanted to add is I don't find it helpful when my work is torn to shreds because of structure. Some of the worst advice has been given to me via: oh, take that word out and put in this, or I wouldn't use that phrase there, or your descriptions are this way or that, you should do this...

Its annoying. I'm going to disregard most comments related to the structure of a piece because it doesn't help me at all. The most helpful advice has come from reader emotions they felt when reading the piece. Did it bore them? Captivate them? What do they think of the characters? These little things help so much.

You may think this semantic, but what you're describing above (to me) isn't structural - it's more line editing.

Structural editing, to my mind, is dealing with the broad-brush plot and character issues. Should X happen here? Should characters Y and Z be blended into one?

I think all writers enjoy the emotional responses, and you probably don't want the same approach from all readers, but those capable of giving constructive structural advice are the most valuable.

 

[Weaver]

I think all writers enjoy the emotional responses. ...

Well, most of the time. I love knowing whether the reader likes a character, or hates him, or suspects that he's secretly a fiendish creature who will kill the other characters in a few chapters (even though he isn't and won't), but occasionally the "emotional response" frustrates the hell out of me.

And yes, structural editing, a.k.a. substantial editing, deals with the Big Picture stuff: the order in which the story is presented, the pacing, characterization, etc. Word choice is a line editing thing.

I know I find feedback on structural things helpful. I have difficulty sometimes with knowing when to give the reader details about backstory, especially. If someone can tell me, "I think you ought to reveal sooner that character A knew character C when they were children" or "This is too soon -- wait until the big confrontation to show through dialogue the real reason why character X is secretly on the villain's side," and explain why they think these changes would improve the story, that is useful to me.

 

[Chessie]

Ok, I get that. If something is confusing or out of order then yes, I want to know. I also would like to know more than just how the story made readers feel. Other things are important too. I'm talking about this: "you shouldn't use loose with bonnet", with no explanation as of why.

......ok? How else am I supposed to let the reader know she doesn't like tying her bonnets tight? Its these little things that piss me off and make me reluctant to share my writing, though I know its important to. My point is that no one has to do it the same way. So long as the message is getting across in a clear, direct, professional and beautiful way then to knitpick over certain phrases or whatever is bogus imo.