Elmore Leonard's 10 "Rules" of Writing

[JonSnow]

To elaborate on my slight disagreement with the "No Prologue" rule... I didn't see any other way, in my book, to include a particular part of the story, other than to put it into the prologue. It happened 15 years before the actual "book" itself begins, but set off a course of events that were pivotal for a number of characters. To make this prologue into "chapter one" would have seemed completely out of place, given that it happened so long ago, and included 3 non-central characters-- one of whom the reader will only see once later on, one who won't appear until approximately halfway through book 2 (I project it to be at least a 3 book series), and another who has gone completely crazy and probably doesn't remember it. There was really no way for me to recall the events through a character's memory, without putting in a prologue set 15 years in the past. So yes, I did see it as necessary.

I tend to think rules 8 and 9 (too much detail for characters and places) are pretty sound advice. Obviously you have to give some details, including anything significant or major (such as hair color, a scar, height, skin tone, voice, etc). But at the same time, you should let the reader's imagination do some of the work. Let them decide on the fine details. In a way, it makes the characters more appealing because they can mold their appearance slightly to what they are attracted (or unattracted) to.

 

[Steerpike]

Taken together, they create a particular kind of writing style, which is prone to its own often ignored flaws, like an over-reliance on dialogue and a narration that's often shallow.

Those aren't necessarily flaws. It is a legitimate style of writing in the same manner as heavily descriptive works represent a legitimate stylistic decision. It may not appeal to you, but that doesn't make it flawed writing.

 

[J. S. Elliot]

I don't care much about whether it is easy or not. I don't mind doing some of the work as a reader; in fact, I would rather use my imagination to fill in the details of the world and the characters. I like a few choice descriptions from the writer, as a general rule, particularly when it comes to characters. I tend to develop an image of a character in my head very early on, and if the writer keeps throwing layers of detail at me it conflicts with the picture I already have in my head and I just disregard it.

There are exceptions, of course. My handle on these forums comes from books by Mervyn Peake. It would be hard to find a more densely descriptive fantasy work than his Gormenghast books. But Peake's skill with language is rare. If you have that kind of skill, then by all means describe away. If the descriptions are artful, poetic, or enthralling in their way, I'll read them all night long. Most of the books you find on the shelf aren't written by writers who have that kind of skill with description. They're more or less stale recitations. In those cases I'd rather see less of it than more.

It's not so much that I don't want to 'work' when I read, but the characters themselves are what seem dry in most classics - which are often written in a very vanilla style. You can have the greatest plot in the world, but if your characters don't "pop" off the page, it doesn't amount to much. (I will, however, be sure to look for the titles you mentioned.)

 

[Steerpike]

To elaborate on my slight disagreement with the "No Prologue" rule... I didn't see any other way, in my book, to include a particular part of the story, other than to put it into the prologue. It happened 15 years before the actual "book" itself begins, but set off a course of events that were pivotal for a number of characters.

Well, ultimately you have to go with what you feel best as the author, and if that's a prologue, then so be it. But you could impart the same information to the reader through exposition in the story proper, or through dialogue between characters discussing the event from 15 years ago, and so on. If no character was around to witness it, and thus the event itself is completely unknown to the characters, then there is nothing wrong with leaving it unknown to the reader as well, and letting the reader learn about it when the characters do. But it is a choice of style, and you have to go with what speaks to you.

 

[Devor]

Those aren't necessarily flaws. It is a legitimate style of writing in the same manner as heavily descriptive works represent a legitimate stylistic decision. It may not appeal to you, but that doesn't make it flawed writing.

Maybe if I had said "heavy dialogue" and "light narration," but I said prone to "over-reliance" and being "shallow." I wasn't talking about the style, but the weaknesses which the style is prone to. If a more detailed writing style is prone to boring descriptions and using dialogue tags to carry their dialogue, then the style you're referring to also has its own weaknesses which I think are more often ignored.

Nor have I said that you must include prologues and character descriptions. You are the one with rules using a lot of "never"s, and that's what I'm responding to.

 

[Steerpike]

Maybe if I had said "heavy dialogue" and "light narration," but I said prone to "over-reliance" and being "shallow." I wasn't talking about the style, but the weaknesses which the style is prone to. If a more detailed writing style is prone to boring descriptions and using dialogue tags to carry their dialogue, then the style you're referring to also has its own weaknesses which I think are more often ignored.

Nor have I said that you must include prologues and character descriptions. You are the one with rules using a lot of "never"s, and that's what I'm responding to.

So your complaint is more about bad writing than the "rules" Leonard suggests. In other words, if the writing is good and follows them, I assume you don't have a problem with it.

I think on the whole these guidelines are more likely to lead writers to producing a piece of good writing than not. That doesn't mean everyone should follow them or any other rules, but as general statements I think they're pretty good. If someone wants to be the next Charles Dickens, that's cool with me too.

 

[Mindfire]

I take issue with #'s 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9. But the one that bugs me most is number 6. How on earth are you supposed to get around using the word "suddenly"? There's absolutely is no substitute for it. It's an invaluable transition word. How are you supposed to convey a "sudden" event without it? Of course, transitions are, I think, the weakest part of my writing. Some of you may not have this problem.

 

[Steerpike]

I take issue with #'s 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9. But the one that bugs me most is number 6. How on earth are you supposed to get around using the word "suddenly"? There's absolutely is no substitute for it. It's an invaluable transition word. How are you supposed to convey a "sudden" event without it? Of course, transitions are, I think, the weakest part of my writing. Some of you may not have this problem.

I think the use of "suddenly" often makes the writing less sudden, odd as that may sound. I don't think I'd agree with "never" using it, but I think the point in general is that these kinds of words often have the opposite effect.

For example, you've got a scene with a guy holding a gun:

"Suddenly, he fired."

"He fired."

Which seems more "sudden" to you? I vote for the second one

 

[Mindfire]

I think the use of "suddenly" often makes the writing less sudden, odd as that may sound. I don't think I'd agree with "never" using it, but I think the point in general is that these kinds of words often have the opposite effect.

For example, you've got a scene with a guy holding a gun:

"Suddenly, he fired."

"He fired."

Which seems more "sudden" to you? I vote for the second one

Well yes, but in that situation, you know he's holding the gun already, so it makes sense to just say "he fired". But if you don't know he has the gun, you have to describe him drawing it. Doing that without a transition word seems kind of impossible.

Or what about a sentence like this:

"Suddenly the light breeze seemed more chilling."

 

[Steerpike]

Well yes, but in that situation, you know he's holding the gun already, so it makes sense to just say "he fired". But if you don't know he has the gun, you have to describe him drawing it. Doing that without a transition word seems kind of impossible.

Or what about a sentence like this:

"Suddenly the light breeze seemed more chilling."

Yeah, I think that sentence is just fine. I wouldn't take any writing rules or guidelines as gospel. I think as a rule they're meant more for beginners and are supposed to provide something that is more likely to lead to better writing.

 

[JonSnow]

Well, ultimately you have to go with what you feel best as the author, and if that's a prologue, then so be it. But you could impart the same information to the reader through exposition in the story proper, or through dialogue between characters discussing the event from 15 years ago, and so on. If no character was around to witness it, and thus the event itself is completely unknown to the characters, then there is nothing wrong with leaving it unknown to the reader as well, and letting the reader learn about it when the characters do. But it is a choice of style, and you have to go with what speaks to you.

You actually gave me something to think about here... I could maybe tell the story in bits and pieces from 2nd-hand sources (one of them being a central character)... obviously I would lose quite a bit of detail, and some insight into the mind of one of the book's peripheral characters, but I might be able to keep the significance of the event itself without having to rely on a prologue. I'm not a lover of Prologues, either... perhaps this will give me an alternative. I'll have to think about it. Thanks for the reply.

 

[Devor]

For example, you've got a scene with a guy holding a gun:

"Suddenly, he fired."

"He fired."

Which seems more "sudden" to you? I vote for the second one

Taking a horrible use of the word as an example to make a "rule" about it doesn't actually make the rule.

"I'm going to kill you!" he said as he pulled the trigger.

He pulled the trigger.

Do you prefer it with the dialogue or without? I prefer it without so then we should never use dialogue.

 

[Steerpike]

Taking a horrible use of the word as an example to make a "rule" about it doesn't actually make the rule.

"I'm going to kill you!" he said as he pulled the trigger.

He pulled the trigger.

Do you prefer it with the dialogue or without? I prefer it without so then we should never use dialogue.

I don't want to interrupt your stampede toward hyperbole, but you may have missed this part of that same post:

I don't think I'd agree with "never" using it, but I think the point in general is that these kinds of words often have the opposite effect.

This should have clued you in on the fact that I was making a generalization, not stating a rule to be obeyed throughout the ages. What's up with the overwrought reactions?

The dialogue example is just silly, because the two versions serve two different purposes, whereas in my "suddenly" example the author wants to impart a sudden action in both cases.

 

[Butterfly]

I think the issue with the word suddenly, is that it is always telling and fails to show anything.

Personally though, I think we are all capable of making up our own rules as we go along and learn for ourselves, and they will be rules to fit our own style of writing. By looking at someone else's it's just a shortcut to having those rules behind us, a way to learn quicker what works and what doesn't. But, they're all just guidelines really.

 

[Devor]

I think on the whole these guidelines are more likely to lead writers to producing a piece of good writing than not. That doesn't mean everyone should follow them or any other rules, but as general statements I think they're pretty good. If someone wants to be the next Charles Dickens, that's cool with me too.

At best, it creates a style that a lot of modern readers are more used to and forgiving of. On balance, it does not somehow make better writing.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Some people love very descriptive writing. When it's centered on setting I don't have much of an issue with it. The problem lies mainly with over descriptions, particularly regarding characters.

When an author gets every detail of a character's appearance out it takes away from the communal relationship of author-reader. If an author is describing a bully and gives me every detail about his build, gait, number of freckles on his nose, and the stitching of his jacket it takes away from me as the reader.

We all know bullies from our own lives. Limiting some of those details allows the reader to assimilate their own ideas from their real world experiences of what a bully is and looks like. This can help to make the world and characters more vivid and real for the reader.

I firmly believe that one of the reasons we often hear the phrase "the book was so much better than the movie" lies in how a reader supplies his or her own cast members to the author's story. With a movie, you're stuck with a director's choices.

Some won't like this but in regards to the word "suddenly" I think it's a lazy word. It does reduce urgency, in my opinion, every time. In the example about the breeze, "Suddenly the breeze felt cooler." it could be written.

"The breeze, warm only moments before, went cold. Sarah shivered with the abrupt change."

It's wordier sure but it's also more concrete and gives character experience.

 

[JCFarnham]

Whether or not it "often" leads to more solid writing from beginners, I still object to guidelines relating to style. If you try you can make anything work. Practice with the myriad functions of your language - the style, the pacing, the feeling, the choice breaking of "rules".

To gives beginners advice like this list is detrimental from my point of view. It perpetuates people not trying. On the description side of things. Different amounts work for different scenes, characters, books, situations, genres, eras... The list goes on, but if every strong writer in the world has told you to be a minimalist and you take that for granted you may never explore the possibilities.

As such I will never tell a beginner to do something specific to MY style. First I would judge what they NEED to get out of the techniques in question or whether they are relevant. Context is the key.

Before accusations are leveled at me I under stand that such things are difficult to impart on the net. The writer in question (havent heard of him don't remember his name) can't be expected to be able to judge his audiences needs like I would want to, so generalisations may seem adequate, but my opinion is that if I cant give advice "I think" is universal I simply won't.

I'm sure he's a great guy and a great writer. Still sometimes generalisations aren't best... Not in all situations.

Do stuff on the list.
Don't do stuff on the list.
You're call, but just explore it first.

 

[Philip Overby]

I would say my writing tends to follow Leonard's "rules" more and more. There is a ton of descriptive fantasy out there that is extremely awesome. I've tried using a more minimalist style as of late, and I tend to like it for longer works. We'll see how it turns out for me (if anyone wants to read any of it.)

Leonard's rules tend to be the opposite of what most fantasy writers and aspiring fantasy writers like to do. That doesn't mean the way they write is wrong. Leonard's writing does tend to be very sparse, but it's sort of "no breath is wasted" type of writing. I remember reading one of his books Pagan Babies which I read cover to cover. His dialogue and character development is excellent. You can see that's why he follows these rules. He can do a lot with very little. But some writers can do a lot with, well, a lot!

Steve Erikson is one of those writers who writes densely but still captivates me in a good way.

 

[Robert Donnell]

Gradually mostly heck broke lose.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I can't say I disagree with any of these. If you're going for a more artistic style, along the lines of a Peake or Nabokov, these don't work of course. But in general I think these are good guidelines (there are no rules).

I'd say they're good guidelines if you want to write like Elmore Leonard.