Improving the craft, or undermining confidence?

[Chessie]

I love the way Brandon Sanderson does his lectures and gives his advice. I wouldn't even call it advice. He's so general and open, I dig his process big time.

That said, last night I was playing with my kindle looking for books to download. I like how Amazon lets you preview the story before buying. I downloaded a couple books, one of which had me enthralled through the first 2 chapters until I finally had to put it down to go to bed. It had adverbs, was, and other 'rule breakers' in it. It also had some info dump in bits and pieces here and there. Anyway, I'm excited to continue reading it. Why? Because the story is fascinating. The author has short descriptions and really paces well with what seems to be happening in the story.

Point being, make the story matter the most out of anything. Its really the main goal when we write, to get that story out. Everything else in your writing will fall into place as you discover what works for you.

 

[Kevin O. McLaughlin]

My experience has been that, without exception, the experienced writers offering worthwhile advice add in something along the lines of "if you like", "if you want", "all writers are different, this is my way". Something like that.

Brandon does it. DWS does it when he talks about writing, too. He's VERY emphatic about his own process - but he always says "all writers are different", and reiterates that any process that is working is not a bad one.

Really, though - I find WD articles to be pretty much the lowest common denominator of writing advice. At best, their essays are usually either dated or raw novice stuff. At worst, their articles are actually harmful and detrimental to the writer trying to adhere to their advice blindly.

On some level, take advice from whence it comes. I feel good listening to advice from Brandon Sanderson - and the whole "Writing Excuses" podcast cast, honestly - because they are where I would like to be in terms of skill. And they're passing along advice that passes the sanity check. Dean Wesley Smith, the same. Stephen King's "On Writing" is excellent, although there are some places where my own opinion and method differ from what he wrote.

I avoid WD entirely at this point. I also try not to listen to anything written about fiction writing by novice writers - that is, folks without some combination of a dozen or so novels or a few dozen shorts to their credit. Someone who wrote two novels and is trying to teach writing probably has nothing new to teach me or really anyone else. They're simply regurgitating the bad advice they were given.

Edit to add: By "passing the sanity check", I more or less mean the "Hemingway check". He was famous for outright lying to novice writers, making up all sorts of crazy stuff that they, in their earnest (chuckle) desire to emulate him would follow. He was not alone. Lots of writers enjoy making up stuff to tell newer writers.

 

[The Dark One]

Writers are faced with two extremely difficult challenges:

1. Figure out what to convey.
2. Figure out how to convey it.

Each choice is fraught with danger.

Very true. My least successful book (depending on how you gauge success) was (among other things) a parody of the search for meaning. It was therefore very confusing, and deliberately so, but for those readers who hung on there was a massive pay off at the end.

I think that on any level you could name it was well written, but it set the reader a mighty challenge and I wasn't famous enough to get away with it. I suspect an established writer may have been hailed as ground-breaking and bravely experimental.

The nice thing is that some readers got it - there were a couple of superb reviews on goodreads by some deeply perspicacious people who managed to stay with the story and appreciated what I was trying to do. My great hope is that when my new book comes out (much less challenging with a far more lineal style) people may enjoy it enough to go looking for my backlist AND TRUST THAT I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING!!!!

 

[Guy]

"NO PURPLE PROSE!" So...even a little sprinkle here and there is bad? I agree it can't all be sappy but sometimes the poetic is in order, is it not? Isn't it a matter of opinion and taste? I enjoy reading a little more expressive, bordering on the flowery writing when distributed properly throughout a work. Why should I axe every single instance of it?


"KEEP IT TIGHT!" So...I can't occasionally or even frequently use the narrative styles of classical literature, but I absolutely must write like Hemingway? If I don't write using absolutely the fewest words possible, does that make me a crappy writer?

I like the way P.D. James put it: "Increase your word power. Words are the raw material of our craft. The greater your vocabulary the more effective your writing. We who write in English are fortunate to have the richest and most versatile language in the world. Respect it."

If you do away with vivid description and keep your sentences as simple as possible, you'll end up with some god-awful dull writing. A novel would be no different from a shopping list, and writing one would require about as much talent. Words are to the writer what notes are to a composer or pigments to an artist. Taking this advice would result in a book that's like a one note song or a picture that's a single shade of green. I'm a fan of H.P. Lovecraft and I love some of the complex sentences he wrote. Mind you, he went overboard from time to time, but crafting the sentences he did requires a little thing called talent. Not just anybody can do it. If they could, there wouldn't be any point in bothering with it. This is particularly problematic for the fantasy genre. I'm creating an entire world, for crying out loud. There's no way I can create a vivid, authentic world populated with vivid, authentic characters and be succinct. It's going to require some words and pages. Sorry, but there's no way around that.

When I read a novel - particularly a fantasy novel - I don't want a sound bite or a blurb. I want to be immersed in a new world. I want to experience it. It's like a vacation - I don't want it to end soon, and when it does end I want to feel a slight loss and be anxious for the next story to come out. Think about your favorite movie. Would it be as good if it was only ten minutes long? If someone is reading for recreation, why do they want it to end quickly? The whole idea is absurd.

"NO ADVERBS! USE BETTER VERBS!" This one feels really personal for some reason. I like to use adverbs. And sometimes, it seems more appropriate to the sentence to use "walk briskly" rather than "trot." Other times, "trot" seems better. I feel like the implication is that if you use adverbs, you're a crappy writer.

This never made sense, either. Adverbs are a normal facet of the English language. They serve a purpose. You don't want to over use them, but you don't want over use anything. Why they single out adverbs is beyond me.

On a side note, have you noticed that to obey this rule leads to violating the first two? If I can't use an adverb, I'll have to use several words to describe something when I could've used one, thus getting away from "keeping it tight" and opening the door for "purple prose."

"IF YOU REALLY LIKE A SECTION OF YOUR WRITING, IT'S TERRIBLE. KILL YOUR DARLINGS NOW." Am I not allowed to like my own work? Really? I am very critical of my work and my self so if I actually am satisfied with something and really like the way it turned out (whether that section is a re-work or just a first-shot), I am proud. But I keep hearing that its a bad thing to like something you wrote. Like I say, I recognize that it can always be better, but is a little self confidence so bad?

This one is just stupid.

These are just a few things that really stick out to me. I do find some parts of these useful and agree with them in part; however, I find it shocking that these are literary 'sins' and 'musts'. Aren't they just the rules du jour? At one point, say Melville era, it was considered mandatory that novels should be really really really hard to read. Now that's considered ridiculous. There are basic guidelines and really good advice available, but how crucial is it that I follow every single one to the 't'? If people always follow the rules 100% how can you ever make breakthroughs?

Exactly. As Hector Barbossa put it, these rules are "more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules."

And after reading a lot of advice on writing, I am trying to edit my novel and just looking at the screen and crying, because of these rules of Damocles over my head. Of course I want to improve. Some of the advice is good.

Yet all of this advice is killing my drive to excel. Why even bother when you MUST do x y and z in order to be good? Why bother when you can't even be pleased with yourself? My whole life has been a struggle against self-hatred and just as I am discovering the ways to accept myself, the love of my life, writing, seems to have this way of saying "you'll never be good enough."

Why even keep writing? Where is the reward? Where is the drive to excel if you have to follow all of these rules? Great writers don't follow all the rules all the time; sure they employ them but they make exceptions.
To modify a quote, well behaved writers rarely make history.
But how do you guys deal with all of the harsh advice without letting is shake your confidence?

There's absolutely no point to creative writing if you don't enjoy it. Trying to get good at it by scrupulously following rules is like trying to become a good artist through paint by numbers. I have to say one rule I've seen that absolutely infuriates me is the one that says not to use big words; a reader shouldn't need a dictionary to read your book. Seriously? Gods forbid the reader should learn a new word! Reading is how I built and enriched my vocabulary. If you find the thought of learning a new word or two so repugnant, you've got no business picking up a book. The only real reason for knowing the so-called rules is so you can break them properly.

"The main rule of writing is that if you do it with enough assurance and confidence, you're allowed to do whatever you like. (That may be a rule for life as well as for writing. But it's definitely true for writing.) So write your story as it needs to be written. Write it honestly, and tell it as best you can. I'm not sure that there are any other rules. Not ones that matter." - Neil Gaiman

"“Write the kind of story you would like to read. People will give you all sorts of advice about writing, but if you are not writing something you like, no one else will like it either.”
― Meg Cabot

Write for yourself, not for the market or trends or any of that other crap. You have a story to tell and only you can tell it. This doesn't mean you ignore criticism. Criticism isn't fun, but it is necessary. As for what criticisms to take, if several people have the same criticism of your writing, there's probably something to it. But I've submitted writing for criticism from four or five people and gotten four or five completely different criticisms. Sometimes they tell me something useful, something I never noticed in my writing and probably never would have. Other times I have no idea what they're talking about. In the end, all you can do is use your own judgement. You're not stupid.

The opinions of publishers and agents is surprisingly limited. I say limited, but I find their opinions of what is and is not good writing all but useless. You've probably done this already, but do a search for famous authors who were rejected and the publishers who missed out on having the next best thing. The tales are legion. Three of my favorites:

One editor told F. Scott Fitzgerald he'd have a pretty good story if he'd "just get rid of the Gatsby character." Yeah, get rid of your titular character. Great advice.

One told Tony Hillerman, a man who wrote crime stories featuring a Native American detective on a reservation police department, to "forget all that Indian stuff." Yep, get rid of the thing that distinguishes your work from all the others. Brilliant!

One editor told Rudyard Kipling he had a poor grasp of the English language.

And for further evidence, just go to a bookstore and look at all the crap publishers do find acceptable. This seems to be endemic in creative or artistic fields - movies (what kind of creative black hole are you in when you've run out of video games and cancelled T.V. shows to make movies from?), music (what twisted soul thought infusing rap with country was a good idea? Whoever it was is probably related to the guy who invented fruit flavored beer and decaf Colombian coffee.), and television (if multiple shows about the Kardashians isn't proof of a fallen civilization, I don't know what is.) are all rife with examples of producers, directors and others of influence who found absolute, undiluted crap to be acceptable. The publishing world is no different. So when a publisher, editor or agent says something is or is not good writing, the fact that he's in the publishing biz doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about. He might know what sells and what doesn't, but even then they seem to be wrong surprisingly often. You know what another rule is? Read the published authors and see how they did it. The first thing you might notice is how often - and blatantly - published authors break these alleged rules. Write the type of story you enjoy reading. If you like it, odds are others will, too. Some of what you write will be great, some of it will be crap, and some of it will be mediocre. Polish it and sharpen it. And enjoy it.

 

[wordwalker]

Agree on all counts.

But let me say, the rule of "these aren't full rules" even justifies

"IF YOU REALLY LIKE A SECTION OF YOUR WRITING, IT'S TERRIBLE. KILL YOUR DARLINGS NOW." Am I not allowed to like my own work? Really?

I've been quoting this one for years, with the caveat "The wildest advice of all-- but with a kernel of sanity hidden in it."

Of course good doesn't equal bad. What the people who originally said "kill your darlings" meant, before it got bastardized, is that a writer should be able to step back from his more personal reactions and see how something works for the story. Loving a bit of writing is mostly a good sign, but just sometimes it can be a sign you're pushing only your own buttons, or you're more impressed with what a risk you took than how well you pulled it off. Or sometimes a phrase draws attention to itself more than it serves the story; it might still be worth it, or if you're trying to be Patrick Rothfuss, a flashy line isn't a distraction because everything else will be flashy too.

Trust your instincts-- the first time. When you edit, learn to spot the times you may have followed the wrong ones.

Then again, sometimes writers leave in the more selfish twists, and readers love them for putting more of themselves into the tale. Tricky.

 

[Caged Maiden]

The key to "Rules" is knowing what they are and having a good grasp of how they apply. Then choosing very carefully when and where to break them. I often write those same comments to people when I critique, but only because they are distracting from the enjoyment of the piece. I've read plenty of good writers who break the rules, and consider myself a bit of a rulebreaker. But the difference is in how it affects enjoyment. The advice is meant to draw writers' attention to those things as potentially significant pitfalls.

I don't think striking all adverbs form a manuscript will ever turn a good writer into a great one. Plain and simple, they have more problems than adverb use, right? It's just that new writers tend to use a lot of adverbs. Indiscriminately. Like they're in love with them...

But I love adverbs too. So I use them. Was it adverb use that got my novel shot down by an agent? No. It was terrible editing. Gotta admit your own weaknesses. And for people without a lot of practical experience, it's often difficult to know what your weaknesses are. Too many people expect the world to be wowed when they first show their work. And when they're not, they go in search of the "why". Often, advice like that is a place to start. Imagine, if you will, you're just getting your driver's license, and I pull up in a school bus and give you a five minute crash course on how to parallel park it. Will you try or give up and go home? That's what it would be like to talk about the really deep issues to new writers. Bloggers have a short segment in which to give SOME advice, so they start with things that are easy. Luckily, there's way better advice to be found on this forum and from the people here

Best wishes.

 

[The Dark One]

My take on kill your darlings is this: sometimes you come up with something that strikes you as pretty good, but either it doesn't quite sit with everything else, or something else changes and it suddenly sticks out as no longer relevant, but you can't quite bring yourself to cut it out because you like the way it's worded.

It's a darling. Kill it.

Another example is when a character comes up with a piece of dialogue which you just love...but it's not really the sort of thing that character would realistically say. My novel Mr Cleansheets was about the adventures of a loveable larrikin who was intelligent but uneducated. At one point he comes out with a quip which was definitely not the product of an uneducated brain - more the sort of thing a graduate of fine arts might say at a gallery opening while clutching a pinot noir. It was so deft and perfect that I couldn't help but leave it in, even though I knew it was wrong. And people have commented on it so it really does stick out like a dog's proverbial equipment.

It was a darling. I should have killed it.

No matter how good, if it departs from the spine of the story or renders a character 'out of character', it is a darling.

Kill it.

 

[Guy]

One rule I apply is to ask myself a couple of questions:

1. What purpose does this piece of writing serve? The answer has to be very, very (perhaps maddeningly) specific. Once that is answered...

2. Does it work? Be brutally honest with yourself when answering this one.

 

[deilaitha]

Wow. I almost cried reading everyone's responses. You have all made so many eloquent, intellectual, and reassuring comments. I cannot thank you all enough. I really needed this boost. I didn't have the opportunity to check ms since I last posted and I am floored by all the helpful, kind, caring, and funny (I'm looking at you, The Dark One) replies.

I love you guys. MS is the best thing that has happened to me as a writer. Thank you all so much.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Wow. I almost cried reading everyone's responses. You have all made so many eloquent, intellectual, and reassuring comments. I cannot thank you all enough. I really needed this boost. I didn't have the opportunity to check ms since I last posted and I am floored by all the helpful, kind, caring, and funny (I'm looking at you, The Dark One) replies.

I love you guys. MS is the best thing that has happened to me as a writer. Thank you all so much.

That's what MS is all about. While we may not always agree with one another, the community is supportive & strives to help.

We're happy to have you with us.....

 

[Caged Maiden]

It's the best thing that happened to me as a writer, too. The people I've met here have undeniably inspired me. I made lifelong friends and increased my quality so much because of crit partners who give me the straight truth, no holds barred. I can't thank this community enough, so instead of personally telling everyone how much they've influenced my life, I try to pass that good will on to others. Whenever I see a new writer who needs help, asks for an honest crit, or needs a boost... I try to be there, like people were there for me. I think the benefits of this sort of community are evidenced in the results. At least for me, that's a pretty significant testament to the quality of people we have here.

I feel stupid. I thought "Kill your darlings" refered to the ability to kill your main character if the story called for it. HA! I'd never heard that phrase before. Good thing I can do both... kill my character even if I don't want to because I love them... and trim the crap out of a manuscript.

 

[The Dark One]

A small pedantic point...it's not trimming the crap. It's trimming the really good writing that probably doesn't belong in the story.

 

[wordwalker]

A small pedantic point...it's not trimming the crap. It's trimming the really good writing that probably doesn't belong in the story.

Exactly. Like the definition of a weed: any plant at all that isn't where you want it.

 

[BWFoster78]

It seemed that this discussion really focused on the benefit of rules. I think there's really a larger issue. Going back to the OP:

I enjoy reading such things as Writer's Digest, blogs on writing, books on writing, etc. Lately, I have been coming across a lot of negative motivation type articles, by which I mean the writer is encouraged to be better by first being told that they are no good.

I thoroughly understand that writers need to guard against complacency, but I consider myself to be a 'good writer.' Not fantastic, not the best, not even yet the best I can be, and that I have yet to reach my full potential. So, in the interest of self-improvement, I read articles to help myself become aware of my shortcomings.

They say that criticism, even the kind that hurts, makes you stronger. Yet after reading a lot of opinion pieces I feel like my confidence has been totally undermined.

I really get this. On one level, all I want, and I feel this is a trait shared by most of us, is to find people who like my writing.

Is that so hard?

The process of pouring everything I have into something and then having it torn apart isn't pleasant.

The problem is that, while we all have the right to put anything out there that we want, none of us have a right to be read. To be read, you only have two options:

1. Figure out who your audience is, figure out what they want, and give it to them.
2. Write the best you freaking can and put it out there in the hopes the readers will find you.

If you fall into category one, good for you. I, unfortunately, am in the second.

There are a lot of people writing in the world. Creating something that stands out from the pack is extremely difficult. You have to create something "special."

If I knew how to create something "special," I'd a) be doing it myself and b) tell you how to do it (I'm just generous that way ).

Until I figure it out, all I can do is to keep improving (and keep debating endlessly with Steerpike on the best way to create "special" ). I believe the best way to continue on that path is to learn from every source imaginable, whether it be Writer's Digest, a blog, this forum, or, especially, specific feedback on my work from critique groups, beta readers, my editor, etc.

While I understand that such can shake your confidence, I don't don't know how you can improve unless you admit that you need improvement.

Of course, in the end, the only person you absolutely have to please is yourself - if all you're looking for is to create writing that you like.

(If you're trying to get me to like your writing, good luck. At best, I'd give the book I've spent 2 and a half years writing 4 stars, and that's only if I were feeling particularly generous.)

 

[The Dark One]

On the subject of 'creating special'...

In my (some would say not so) humble opinion, if you want to create special, you have to BE special.

Are you?

This comes back to my recent What makes you different? What makes you good? thread. Same principle. Special people (however defined) have a different way of construing the world and that gives them a different slant on the art of storytelling. Doesn't mean it's a good slant, and doesn't mean it will sell...but it will be different from that vast ocean of material painstakingly put together by all of those who've learned every writing craft and literary trick under the sun, but don't have that spark of originality to give their work life.

Examine your life. Are you special? Are you doing special things and thinking special thoughts?

How would you know?

One of the several things I love about George Orwell is that he reinvented himself as special in order to be taken seriously. Life in 1920s Europe was a drab and difficult affair for those without money, yet Orwell did something utterly unthinkable for those times. He threw in his secure middle class livelihood and became a hobo...deliberately...in order to experience in a visceral sense the underside of life, and kept it up for (I think) a couple of years before returning to the middle class supported (mainly) by his writing.

Obviously, the spark of adventure must already have been there, but that's an incredible step to take.

Made him special though, and look at the results.

 

[BWFoster78]

On the subject of 'creating special'...

In my (some would say not so) humble opinion, if you want to create special, you have to BE special.

Are you?

I think it's fun for us to speculate on what it takes to create "special" and how to create it. I also think it's a discussion fraught with difficulties.

1. I don't think any of us really know or we'd be doing it.
2. I seriously doubt that I would consider the same books "special" as I would.
3. Even if we could agree on what books are defined as "special," I doubt we could agree on the reasons that make them so or how those results were achieved.

For a book to be "special" for me, it doesn't have to look at the world in a new way. It simply has to engage me and make me feel. It has to stick with me after I put it down.

I have no doubt that your definition differs from mine, however, and your definition is just as valid for you as mine is for me.

 

[wordwalker]

(Deletes rant about "special" being the worst told-not-shown word for a writer to use, ever.)

Seems to me The Dark One put it backwards: if someone is able to create something that's unique, important, or powerful, that's the only proof that matters that they are that good. Besides, if "specialness" needed any additional proofs, I'd say the process of hammering out work like that --and everything that may need to get it done-- is trial enough.

 

[BWFoster78]

(Deletes rant about "special" being the worst told-not-shown word for a writer to use, ever.)

I don't have a problem with the use of the word as long as everyone understands that the definition varies widely according to personal tastes. There is no "special" that fits everyone. I think it is useful as a term that means something like, "The quality or combination of qualities that makes a work of fiction rank among my favorites."

 

[Steerpike]

I tend to agree with The Dark One, though as BWFoster says, it differs from person to person. For me, the author not only has to give me characters and a story I am interested in, but tell the story in a unique way that isn't just interchangeable with every other aspiring writer out there. That's the case before I'll consider an author "special" and an automatic buy when their next work comes out. I'll read the other type as well, but I don't have any vested interest in them and if they quit putting out work it wouldn't bother me.

 

[BWFoster78]

I tend to agree with The Dark One, though as BWFoster says, it differs from person to person. For me, the author not only has to give me characters and a story I am interested in, but tell the story in a unique way that isn't just interchangeable with every other aspiring writer out there. That's the case before I'll consider an author "special" and an automatic buy when their next work comes out. I'll read the other type as well, but I don't have any vested interest in them and if they quit putting out work it wouldn't bother me.

Though I would guess we would differ on the specifics a great deal, I'm not sure we're far apart in our views in general. To me the big thing isn't a unique telling of the story as much as the fact that it creates a reaction. Most fantasy, I read and forget. Some books, however, the special ones, stay with me.

I would guess that you feel much the same; it's just a matter of trying to define what creates that reaction.