Rules-based versus organic writing

[Heliotrope]

Technique is the perfect word. everyone will choose to use them in different ways for different ends, or not use them at all. What I don't understand is why the discussion of their uses seems to get so many hackles up, as if increasing ones repertoire is a negative thing which should be avoided?

 

[Steerpike]

I think that's the issue I had with the wording in the OP as well. Just like there's something off about the word rules, I think there's something about the word organic that isn't sitting right with me. It's true that while you write you might not be focusing too much effort into your prose. But you still have these techniques that you've developed that you should be using even if you're not thinking too much about them. It should be getting to be second nature to use some of your writing techniques during the first go around.

Definitional question: once it becomes second nature and you don't have to think about it, isn't it then part of your organic process?

 

[Steerpike]

What I don't understand is why the discussion of their uses seems to get so many hackles up, as if increasing ones repertoire is a negative thing which should be avoided?

It's the way in which the discussion of their use is presented that I think has this affect. It is very prescriptive, often, which is a mistake, and people react to that.

 

[Devor]

Technique is the perfect word. everyone will choose to use them in different ways for different ends, or not use them at all. What I don't understand is why the discussion of their uses seems to get so many hackles up, as if increasing ones repertoire is a negative thing which should be avoided?

I wasn't following the thread that lead to this one, so I can't really say. But the "rules" lead to a lot of amateur critiques. If you look around the greater online writing community, and even here in the showcase, I think it's a huge problem.

 

[Steerpike]

Dwight V. Swain first presented the idea of MRUs in his book Techniques of the Selling Writer, and I think that word is better than rules or even guidelines.

Rules and guidelines might work somewhat if we use the meaning of a pattern, measurement, etc. that can help us create the shape of what we write, but the problem is that rules especially is being used in a squishy way to imply some kind of authoritative dictate. Guideline is only slightly less authoritative.

Techniques removes those connotations.

Here's what Swain says in the forward to that book:

Since they're primarily tools, these techniques have little bearing on literary quality or the lack of it. No writer uses all of them. No writer can avoid using some of them. How well they serve will depend on you yourself.​

​

"Techniques" is a much better word than either rule or guideline. And I like the quote by Swain, which is at odds with the advice that if you want to produce something of quality you must employ x, y, or z. Going back to the admonition to have microtensions on every page, if I understand Swain correctly he's saying whether you follow advice like that or not doesn't necessarily impact the literary quality of the resulting work.

 

[Devor]

Definitional question: once it becomes second nature and you don't have to think about it, isn't it then part of your organic process?

Probably, if we're getting going to formalize things. But it's not how I hear the word. And regardless of whether we agree or disagree or whatever else, it's something that I feel needs to be a stated part of the conversation to do it any justice.

 

[Steerpike]

Probably, if we're getting going to formalize things. But it's not how I hear the word. And regardless of whether we agree or disagree or whatever else, it's something that I feel needs to be a stated part of the conversation to do it any justice.

Sounds like we use the term a little differently, and I'm not sure either is right or wrong in this context. To me, organic writing is sitting down with a vision of the story in mind and just writing without much conscious thought as to the technical aspects. Certainly the unconscious mind is still at work when you're writing that way, and the output of Lee Child's organic process is going to look a lot different, and a lot better, than the organic output of someone who is just putting pen to paper for the first time.

 

[Russ]

I've run across a few people who are rubbed the wrong way by people characterizing the "rules" as tools for consideration, however. I've seen critiques from such people filled with sentences like "you can't do that."

That is unfortunate. I have friends who are top notch writing teachers, and have their own sets of rules they teach to serious acclaim, but even they say up front that all rules can be broken at the right time for the right reason. Of course you should always consider the source of the critique in deciding how much weight you are going to give to it.

The other side of the coin is problematic as well, when people who apparently want to sell their work traditionally like to say the rules don't apply to them etc and make excuses for weakness in their work. I was talking to a very senior agent not along go about how frustrating he finds it dealing with young authors who won't take guidance, or don't take it well. Apparently they like to say to him "Well [insert name of legendary author here] did it, so I can do it and sell." To which he replies either "Well X was writing 50 years ago and we don't do it that way any more" or (my personal favourite) "What you are doing is copying the stuff that X does poorly, but the rest of your writing is not as great at X's to carry that handicap."

 

[Devor]

Sounds like we use the term a little differently . . .

So to kind of progress the conversation a little . . .

If I were to characterize the discussion right now, I would say it had two parts:

1) How much do you use formal writing techniques when developing your style?

2) How much do you focus on your prose while writing versus editing?

For the first part, to some degree I think it makes for each writer to spend some time thinking about each of the rules, and making some effort to apply them to their writing, one at a time, to better make those decisions for themselves. Something like "microtension" may be broad enough to say there's a million ways to use it. Something like "Show don't tell" may need a little more nuanced, "well, I can tell, and that works better for me if I put the telling in a character's dialogue...."

And for the second, I think 2nd drafts, and writing exercises, are a better place to focus on exploring your techniques than the first draft of your work, where you have other things to focus on. But for me personally, I have real trouble writing "bad" prose. I have to produce something that's either decent or better, or I can't make myself type, and I just have to embrace that.

 

[Heliotrope]

I wasn't following the thread that lead to this one, so I can't really say. But the "rules" lead to a lot of amateur critiques. If you look around the greater online writing community, and even here in the showcase, I think it's a huge problem.

I may need clarification on this point. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is that not the point of these forums? Of the brainstorming, world building, showcase, and writing challenge boards? Don't most of the posts start with "Critique my.... insert world, backstory, prologue, chapter segment, story entry here."

And are we not all, or at least most of us, amateurs, looking for feedback and giving feedback?

I'm confused about this.

 

[Devor]

I may need clarification on this point. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is that not the point of these forums? Of the brainstorming, world building, showcase, and writing challenge boards? Don't most of the posts start with "Critique my.... insert world, backstory, prologue, chapter segment, story entry here."

And are we not all, or at least most of us, amateurs, looking for feedback and giving feedback?

I'm confused about this.

Okay, in this particular case I was using "amateur" as kind of an understatement / euphemism for "garbage." There's a lot of people who develop critiques from some book they read or advice they heard, but they never received any advice on how to give a good critique. So they jump down people's throats shouting off rules without paying any attention to what the writer is actually trying to do the with their prose in the first place.

The worst, in my opinion, is when a writer needs help with fundamental things like plotting and character, but ends up "defending" and bickering about whether or not "he was standing" is using the passive voice until we all just want to gag.

That is, the rules can be kind of a "black herring" for critiques. Like a red herring, but dark.

 

[Heliotrope]

Got it. This is true.

But so does that mean we should never talk about the techniques? Because in my opinion it means we should talk about them more. If someone has heard "start with a great hook" and they think it means "start with a car chase or explosion" and that it means you can ONLY start that way, then that is a problem and is something that should be discussed. The last thread was about just this... all the different possibilities of what a "hook" could be, and how they work and when and why you might want to use them. It got as abstract as how something as simple as humour can work as a hook. That is hardly prescriptive. And yet it still raises hackles.

 

[Steerpike]

Got it. This is true.

But so does that mean we should never talk about the techniques? Because in my opinion it means we should talk about them more. If someone has heard "start with a great hook" and they think it means "start with a car chase or explosion" and that it means you can ONLY start that way, then that is a problem and is something that should be discussed. The last thread was about just this... all the different possibilities of what a "hook" could be, and how they work and when and why you might want to use them. It got as abstract as how something as simple as humour can work as a hook. That is hardly prescriptive. And yet it still raises hackles.

I think we should talk about them--including the advantages and limitations of each technique, etc. I think what Devor is talking about is a critique that just parrots these sorts of things without any real analysis or understanding. One of the most common versions of this I see from new writers is simply repeating "show don't tell." It's an easy statement to use as a throw-away in a critique. It can be valuable, if made with consideration, but it's not worth a lot if the critiquer isn't looking at what the author is trying to accomplish, and whether showing as opposed to telling is the best approach given the particular context.

I say discuss techniques, bring them up in critiques, &c., but do so in a considered manner, and even when you think the application of a given technique is the best approach try to be be overly prescriptive in terms of how you present it.

 

[Devor]

But so does that mean we should never talk about the techniques? Because in my opinion it means we should talk about them more. If someone has heard "start with a great hook" and they think it means "start with a car chase or explosion" and that it means you can ONLY start that way, then that is a problem and is something that should be discussed.

Ohh, I totally agree. In fact I think we should maybe even put together our own "Mythic Scribe jargon glossary" for these things so we can get on the same page with these terms and stop rehashing them so much. And like you said, that's not just for people who are like, "I don't know what a Hook is," or "I don't want to use a Hook," but for those people who make it completely too rigid, which is more harmful because it stymies other writers - especially when those other writers don't have the same resource on hand to have any idea what you're talking about.

But in the meantime, we have to rehash this strange meta-battle over rules every now and again, although it's been a while since the last one.

 

[Russ]

I say discuss techniques, bring them up in critiques, &c., but do so in a considered manner, and even when you think the application of a given technique is the best approach try to be be overly prescriptive in terms of how you present it.

As a Canadian I think we should do everything in a considered manner.

However, when you go on the old inter web, to a site like this one or similar ones, you are going to expose yourself to many different experience levels, personalities and skill sets. Which has its pros and its cons. But some people have only read one book on writing, or learned a couple of lessons on technique. I think they need to feel important and part of the discussion despite the fact that they have never had any advice or training on delivering a good technique.

It strikes me that both Devor and Steerpike yearn for a place where they are surrounded by experienced critiquers who all deliver well thought out and helpful techniques. Such places exist. This ain't one of them.

The solution to the problem that both Devor and Steerpike seem faced with is to join high quality critique groups with carefully selected members. I commend that experience to anyone.

Or perhaps someone can get rich selling online classes on how to critique.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Show don't tell is thrown around way too much by people who don't know what the hell they're talking about, no doubt about that, as well as the dreaded "passive". And many times inaccurately. But it when it comes to critiquing writing I'm not going to go into a discussion of techniques, I'm going to say what IMO is lacking or off in the writing. If I say "on the nose", "talking heads", or whatever, it's up to the writer to figure these things out (or ask me what the hell I mean) and decide for themselves.

I've even seen a pro give an example of show don't tell where the show I considered to be more "telling with style" than real showing (To rip-off Woody from Toy Story). And that's how he taught writing at a prestigious writing institution too. Who the hell knows.

Of course, I also loathe pussyfooting around or long explanations for why something doesn't work for the reader. Just say it and move on for crying out-loud. Give an example? Sure, but do it and move on.

Many times when critiquing I will say something to the effect of: I don't care if you do what I say, but do think about it. Other than that, I'm blunt. Most of the time, heh heh.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

As a barbarian, raw brutality is highly educational. Some of the best lessons learned are served up by bleeding and/or howling in pain... Oh, that's why mum told me not to touch the stove!

What is also very educational is that at some point you must learn to ignore the noise and figure out what the real problem is, LOL. And, in any case, it's far more real world than a critique group. Not that I wouldn't like a great critique group, but I've never encountered one.

As a Canadian I think we should do everything in a considered manner.

However, when you go on the old inter web, to a site like this one or similar ones, you are going to expose yourself to many different experience levels, personalities and skill sets. Which has its pros and its cons. But some people have only read one book on writing, or learned a couple of lessons on technique. I think they need to feel important and part of the discussion despite the fact that they have never had any advice or training on delivering a good technique.

It strikes me that both Devor and Steerpike yearn for a place where they are surrounded by experienced critiquers who all deliver well thought out and helpful techniques. Such places exist. This ain't one of them.

The solution to the problem that both Devor and Steerpike seem faced with is to join high quality critique groups with carefully selected members. I commend that experience to anyone.

Or perhaps someone can get rich selling online classes on how to critique.

 

[Aurora]

Show don't tell is thrown around way too much by people who don't know what the hell they're talking about, no doubt about that, as well as the dreaded "passive". And many times inaccurately.

Can I make a quick comment on this? I'm currently reading this: The Champagne Queen and the first chapter is entirely tell. Yet I love it because she's swept me into her world just telling me a story. The way it's written, I'd say that most critiquers would label her style telling and tell her to rewrite it. But it works just fine as is, and it's a beautiful novel.

I don't have much to add to this lengthy conversation except to say that I still don't know what an MRU is. It sounds like a military meal of some sort. I do think about the other things mentioned, which I hesitate to label as rules because there really are no rules in writing except to entertain the reader.

In a way, my understanding of why folks discuss these techniques is clearer to me now that I've had some time to think about it. In no way did I intend to be disrespectful in the other thread. Everyone has their level of where they're at and these concepts are mostly new to me. I've never read Maas. I've read Coyne and James Scott Bell and other wonderful authors who write craft books. I apply what I learn to my books, learn from my editor(s), beta readers, and other writers I work with. This, in part, is why I agree with Devor who mentioned that we adopt these methods and apply them to our work thus making it intuitive. If anything, deeper study of craft has allowed me to:
a) add new methods to my work
b) understand what I was already doing and improve it.

 

[Russ]

I don't have much to add to this lengthy conversation except to say that I still don't know what an MRU is. It sounds like a military meal of some sort. I do think about the other things mentioned, which I hesitate to label as rules because there really are no rules in writing except to entertain the reader.

That is exactly what I was thinking...MRE...when I first saw that.

Anyways it stands for Motivation-Reaction Unit if I recall correctly. Which basically means your writing is clearer if you put the cause before its effect. The idea has been around in different forms for quite some time.

 

[Svrtnsse]

This thread is moving way fast...

Anyway, I'll try and reiterate what I wrote in the other thread (and in others before that), and I think this is sort of similar to what Devor said early on - but perhaps from a different angle.

Let's say the goal is to write my story in such a way that my intended audience enjoys the experience of reading it. To achieve this I need to understand what makes a story enjoyable to read. I then need to put that understanding to use to the best of my ability.
Unfortunately, I was not born with an intuitive understanding of what makes stories enjoyable. I just know when I enjoy a story and when I don't, and I've never really put much thought into why - until recently (last handful of years).

This is where the rules/techniques/tools come into play. They're shortcuts to understanding.
They're like little pre-made bricks of canned understanding that you can use until you figure out how to create your own custom building blocks.

When I started out, I quickly learned that I'm supposed to show and not tell, but it took a while before I figured out what the difference was.
Eventually I also figured out the reason for why showing is supposed to be preferable to telling.
This understanding helps me in my writing because I'm no longer following a rule. I'm just going with what feels right based on my understanding of how readers take in and process information.

That sounds awfully pretentious doesn't it?

Anyway...
Rules are good like that, but it's also really important to approach them in the right way. Others have touched upon that earlier in the thread. Don't just slam the rules down onto people. Don't just blindly follow rules.

Another example.
For a long time I've been struggling with storytelling. I quite recently learned just how important reader expectations are, and why they have to be taken into account. It wasn't until just the other day, in another thread where the concept of making a promise to the reader came up that things finally clicked. The pieces fell into place and I felt a bit like I'd just leveled up my storytelling skills.
I've known about the rule, and I've been thinking of how to apply it to my writing, but it's not until just now that I think I'll finally be able to do that in an intuitive way.