quality or standard

[SamazonE]

When do you forsake one for the other? Another question, are you a morning lark, or night owl? When I set out to write, I either feel queasy, or stoned. I have this discussion with others, and they feel chipper and nosey about it.

So, by standards, I mean there are a set of rules, that have either been broken, or were wrong in the first place, and quality would be snapping it up a bit so I feel okay about it.

It is pretty much run of the mill for me to edit scarcely in tune with my inner qwerty.

 

[pmmg]

I am not sure you really have this english thing down, Canary Gurl.

My answer is, I would choose to forsake the standards when doing so would improve the quality of my art. Otherwise, the standards should probably apply.

 

[Mad Swede]

As an answer I'll quote David Hockney: "The moment you cheat for the sake of beauty, you know you're an artist."

And it's true, even in writing. Yes, there are rules and standards for writing. But I would say that you can and should break these if it makes the prose better.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I personally think that there aren't so much rules as that there are guidelines. Tips that can make your writing better. Some of those are more important than others, but all of them can be broken.

The main thing is author intent. Know what effect doing something will have on your reader and chose to either go for that effect or not. The recent thread we had about Do successful authors bother with good technique? is a great example in my mind. Writing a legal thriller requires different things than writing an epic fantasy story. And one breaks some of the rules of the other.

 

[xena]

The rules are more guidelines than anything. I think what really matters is that the work feels right.