Terry Bisson's Rules for Writing SFF short stories

[Feo Takahari]

I wouldn't say, "Well, this one guy here breaks all these rules and is pretty good, so I guess all rules are pointless."

Perhaps I overstated my case when I said that I didn't care about rules lists. As I said earlier, I do think it's useful and important to learn from the techniques other writers use. But I view it more in terms of the works they write--the rules they list off are important mostly so you can more efficiently extract their techniques.

In Bisson's case, his rules are helpful for writing stories like "I Saw the Light" and "Bears Discover Fire." My stories aren't much like those, so his techniques aren't all that helpful to me. That doesn't mean I can't learn from, say, the way he handles the concept of religious rapture, but it does mean I can ignore more of his list than I could of a list by, say, Orson Scott Card (whom I write much more similarly to.)

Edit: My original phrasing of this was more confrontational than it needed to be, so I'll tone it down. I think you're misinterpreting a lot of what Mythopoet is saying. Seriously, reread her earlier posts--there are things you're saying she's saying that just don't seem like they follow logically from what she actually posted.

 

[Mythopoet]

Person A expresses an opinion
Person B expresses disagreement
Person A expresses why Person B is wrong as opposed to just saying, "You're wrong!"

I think you're completely misunderstanding my position. I couldn't care less what your opinion is about Terry Bisson's list of rules. If you disagree with my assessment it matters not in the least to me. You're free to think whatever you want about the list.

What I object to is your negative characterization of me, as evidenced in this quote from your post:

I think Mythopoet takes a completely different route to learning writing than I do. When I read advice from someone who is successful at something at which I'm not, my first thought is, "What can I learn from this person?"

Mythopoet seems to take the tact of, "What can I find to disagree with here?"

This is a characterization entirely based on false assumptions and thus is wrong. Now please, can this pointless exchange stop?

 

[BWFoster78]

What I object to is your negative characterization of me, as evidenced in this quote from your post:

But the negative characterization stems from your stated opinions, and you've done nothing to change my assessment.

Now please, can this pointless exchange stop?

Feel free to stop anytime you wish.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Let's not take this line of thought any farther. It's not acceptable to make personal judgments or comments on Mythic Scribes.

Everyone in this thread is capable of clear, on topic expression without resorting to personal attacks or arguments.

Disagreement is fine, but ensure the discussion remains constructive.

 

[Guy]

One thing I've noticed about successful writers is that they tend to break a lot of rules. Frequently.

 

[Steerpike]

One thing I've noticed about successful writers is that they tend to break a lot of rules. Frequently.

Yes, and you can find them doing it in first novels, so it's not merely a case of being able to get away with it because they're famous.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Yes, and you can find them doing it in first novels, so it's not merely a case of being able to get away with it because they're famous.

If you're trying to look at a list of rules as if they should apply to any and all, then yes, they're constantly broken. Rather, I'd say each author should develop rules that enable their own style. Within your specific rules set, the one you've cultured over time and which applies to your vision, your probably going to adhere to them more than break away. When you do break away, it's likely you're doing so for a purpose.

 

[Ravana]

When you do break away, it's likely you're doing so for a purpose.

Agree… though only if you're doing it on purpose. If you're breaking a "rule" accidentally or through inattention, it's no credit to you and you won't be able to repeat it deliberately, to effect, at a later date. Or, as the homily goes: you need to know the rules before you break them.

I'm no fan of lists of rules, contrary to any impressions I might be creating here. I've been "defending" Bisson's mostly for the purpose of exemplification. What I am a fan of is being aware of what you're doing, and why you're doing it. This is something any list of (reasonable[SUP]1[/SUP]) rules can help a writer with—it's a list of things the other author is aware of doing, or of things that author is aware of other authors doing: it's something which has already been thought out and applied by someone in the business. The value of any individual rule on any given list can be debated, but it will rarely be the case that a rule is not worthy of being given any consideration whatsoever.

Most writers seem to hate "rules." I'm good with that. I don't use a specific list myself… apart from a handful of reminders of idiosyncrasies I desperately need to make sure I'm not overindulging myself in.[sup]2[/sup] However, whenever I see someone saying that some rule doesn't apply to his work, my inevitable first impulse is to question how well that person truly understands his work, not to applaud his independence. He may be right; far more often, he hasn't given the matter sufficient consideration.

•

1. An "unreasonable"—that is, pointless—rule might be: "All flying monkeys should be left-handed."
2. Yes, intricate syntax does fall near the top. Why do you ask?

 

[BWFoster78]

However, whenever I see someone saying that some rule doesn't apply to his work, my inevitable first impulse is to question how well that person truly understands his work, not to applaud his independence. He may be right; far more often, he hasn't given the matter sufficient consideration.

This is such a true statement.

What I keep coming back to is that writing fiction that will truly capture a reader's interest is freaking hard, and it takes a lot of effort to get to a point where you can do it well. It seems silly to me to disregard any advice from people who know what they're talking about without giving that advice serious consideration.

 

[Chessie]

Yes, and you can find them doing it in first novels, so it's not merely a case of being able to get away with it because they're famous.

I was reading a story from a famous author (I won't name him but he's a biggie right now), and the first paragraph of his book was completely passive. I think that's the book that made him famous.

But my 2 cents about the discussion: I find inspiration from other authors as well, and someday I hope that I'm able to share something with new writers to help them along their way. Writing rules are subjective and personalized imo. But I like to read these sorts of articles (and watch youtube videos) because someone may say something that will help me. I think its important to keep an open mind not just because someone is successful, but because we're all in this together and the support is invaluable.

EDIT: Wanted to add that whenever I have applied a writing rule, its strengthened my writing and helped me learn something. I don't always follow rules and frankly, sometimes I like my "-ly", etc. I see writing as any other craft I've had to learn, where I look up to others who have more experience than I do and are publishing their books. I respect that.

 

[Steerpike]

My take on why beginning authors seem to cling to the idea of rules is a bit different, and I suppose a bit less charitable (depending on how you view it).

As Brian noted above, writing is hard work. Putting out something that is going to grab and reader and have them clamoring for more is not easy. What's more, though, is there is no one path to doing it, and no real way of predicting success. It's part science and larger part art. That is hard to quantify.

When humans set out to accomplish something, they want to build certainty around it. If you want to be a doctor, you plan out the course of your education, and assuming you follow the appropriate steps and do them well, you'll be a doctor. For beginning writers, there is in my view a great deal of comfort in thinking things are the same with fiction writing. If you work at it, follow steps A, B, and C, and adopt the Ten Rules of Writing, then you'll be a successful writer.

Only, in writing it's not true. So while rules lend new writers comfort, giving them the impression that there is a recipe for success that one need but follow to become a self-supporting professional writer, it is a false comfort. There is no one path to success and no set of rules guaranteed to get you there.

 

[BWFoster78]

When humans set out to accomplish something, they want to build certainty around it. If you want to be a doctor, you plan out the course of your education, and assuming you follow the appropriate steps and do them well, you'll be a doctor. For beginning writers, there is in my view a great deal of comfort in thinking things are the same with fiction writing. If you work at it, follow steps A, B, and C, and adopt the Ten Rules of Writing, then you'll be a successful writer.

Only, in writing it's not true. So while rules lend new writers comfort, giving them the impression that there is a recipe for success that one need but follow to become a self-supporting professional writer, it is a false comfort. There is no one path to success and no set of rules guaranteed to get you there.

Steerpike,

Two separate issues that I see here:

1. What is the message that should be conveyed to "new" writers?

2. What is useful to "less new" writers who are learning their craft?

Regarding 1: I agree with you that no one should be trying to convey to new writers that a certain recipe will lead them to success. I think a much better message is something like, "The road is difficult, and part of what makes it so difficult is that, at first, you don't even know enough to evaluate your own progress. Seek wisdom from a lot of sources as no one can predict where you'll find that one idea that leads you to your next increase in skill. Get as much feedback as you can. Figure out what works for you and don't stop learning."

Regarding 2: Personally, I find rules a great way both to communicate and to have communicated to me, quickly and easily, writing and storytelling techniques. If a particular rule strikes a fancy, I can research it more. If not, I can file it away for future use.

I guess that my main problem with an "anti-rule" stance is that I don't understand the alternative method of learning that is being proposed.

I get the rule side:

A writer says, "This, this, and this works for me." I can then evaluate each of the things he lists and determine if they will work for me as much as it worked for the originator of the advice.

I don't get the anti-rule side:

Each writer has to somehow discover how to write? How do they ever advance like this?

So, I guess, my main point is that, while rules aren't a perfect way to learn writing, it's the only viable option I've heard.

 

[Ravana]

Only, in writing it's not true. So while rules lend new writers comfort, giving them the impression that there is a recipe for success that one need but follow to become a self-supporting professional writer, it is a false comfort. There is no one path to success and no set of rules guaranteed to get you there.

True dat.

However, as BWFoster78 observes, there's also the "you gotta start somewhere" factor. So while rules can't serve as a recipe, they can serve as a good grounding, all the more so for someone who lacks practice and experience.

The reason rules can't serve as a recipe is that no matter how many of them you follow, nor how closely, they will never generate a story: if you don't have a story, you've got squat. (Well, apart from Harlequin romances, which I think have reached the realm of algorithms.) What rules can do is let you take your story and turn it into a passable text, even if you have never done this before and have no idea how to. Once it's reached "passable," go back through it again–and again, etc.–reapplying the rules, making sure you didn't fail to apply them where you ought to have (or where they are now relevant due to some change you made in the previous pass), and considering any new rules you've picked up in the meantime. After a few passes you will probably have a text that's more than merely "passable"; it's not going to be high literature, but its remaining flaws are going to reflect weaknesses in your story, not in your ability to organize and present it. Which is important, because you may never be able to identify the flaws in your story until you have eliminated more prosaic [sic] possibilities.

Then, and only then, should the author start to consider ways in which to violate rules.

Even after all that, you still don't have art. Let's face it: most writing rules tell you what not to do, and even the ones that tell you what to do generally don't (or can't) tell you how, only let you know what the end product is supposed to look like. But rules can get you to the point where art is the only thing you still need to worry about.

Whether you can take it beyond that point or not… is impossible to predict. Just gotta keep trying.

-

Here's a writing exercise, for anyone interested in trying it: pick one of your completed stories. Look up Twain's "rules" (presented in his essay "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offences"–the Gutenberg link I provide on page 1), and go through your story, considering each one in turn. Importantly, look not only for places you don't follow each rule, but also the places you do. This, I think, is where most people fail to take full advantage of rules sets: they can identify what you're doing right as well as what you might wish to reconsider. And it's knowing what you're doing right that allows you to do it again.

Give it a whirl. It'll probably turn out to be more fun than it may sound like at first.

-

Tangential, but relevant, comment: another thing one sees from time to time is a writer claiming that he doesn't spend a lot of time revising–that he writes his stuff in one pass and doesn't need all this redrafting, peer review, etc. rigmarole. The industry has a word for such people. It's "amateur."

 

[Mythopoet]

Tangential, but relevant, comment: another thing one sees from time to time is a writer claiming that he doesn't spend a lot of time revising—that he writes his stuff in one pass and doesn't need all this redrafting, peer review, etc. rigmarole. The industry has a word for such people. It's "amateur."

Or they could be the real professionals. The ones that have been writing for so long that they don't need to do much editing anymore. They're just good enough to write good first drafts.

 

[Steerpike]

I've actually sold a first draft of a story, so I'm not in the camp of people who think it just can't be done well on the first go.

 

[Philip Overby]

I guess that my main problem with an "anti-rule" stance is that I don't understand the alternative method of learning that is being proposed.

I get the rule side:

A writer says, "This, this, and this works for me." I can then evaluate each of the things he lists and determine if they will work for me as much as it worked for the originator of the advice.

I don't get the anti-rule side:

Each writer has to somehow discover how to write? How do they ever advance like this?

So, I guess, my main point is that, while rules aren't a perfect way to learn writing, it's the only viable option I've heard.

BW: I'm guessing that the anti-rule stance would be more of trial and error way of going about doing things. Try something and see if it works. If it doesn't, then try something else. I feel like rules that say "do this or do that" are helpful in some ways, but writers only ever really find their true path by writing and putting things out there. I think there's a lot of this "fragile egg" syndrome with a lot of writers nowadays. They may be afraid to put work out there that they're not absolutely positive is going to be praised and liked. I find this problematic in some ways because you have writers who never actually take that next step because their ideal doesn't match their reality. Ideally I want to be writing mind-blowingly insane fiction. I'm not at that point yet. But will I ever be?

So I'd say, yes, rules are helpful for anyone starting out. It gives them a jumping off point at least. I'm not sure "just figure it out" is really helpful for brand new writers. However, they have to cast off the rules when they feel comfortable, just like a kid taking off training wheels. They have to pop a wheelie, ride down a hill, try a couple of tricks. That's the only way writers ever feel comfortable in their own skin. It's by figuring out the basics and then letting loose and seeing what works and what doesn't. A writer who constantly needs someone telling him or her what is right will be always grasping at straws.

That said, if rules help, follow them. I find certain structures extremely helpful for me (scene/sequel for instance), but others may find them too restricting. Just like one guitarist may love to use scales and chords, another may prefer just wail on the strings and make noises come out.

 

[Guy]

Write the type of story you'd like to read.

See how other authors have done it.

Do what works.

 

[Philip Overby]

Write the type of story you'd like to read.

See how other authors have done it.

Do what works.

This actually works in practice, but as some have said, new writers want the easy way out. There is no easy way out. However, storytelling often does follow some basic principles that writers could learn. Once they've learned them, then break them. But I'm not of the opinion that every writer needs to "break the rules." Some do perfectly fine following a rather simple format: MC wants something, goes after it, doesn't get, keeps trying, gets it/doesn't get it.

I think most writers who existed before "How to Get Published" books, blogs, or forums just read widely and did exactly what you said: tried to do what their favorite authors were doing in a different way (or sometimes even the same way).

"What works" is the subjective part. Sometimes what works doesn't appeal to a wide base of people. There are many literary writers who obviously know what they're doing, but still only scratch by with each novel they write. "What works" can be writing as artistically as possible or it can be trying to appeal to a wide base. Or it can be both.

I tend to think if five people love something and five people hate it, then that is when it works.

 

[Ravana]

I tend to think if five people love something and five people hate it, then that is when it works.

Shoot, I don't care if only one out of ten likes it, as long as the other nine find the writing lucid enough they can readily identify why they don't.

I always hope (and strive) for more, of course.…

I can even point to a commercially-successful example to illustrate what I mean: Marion Zimmer Bradley's Mists of Avalon. I read it once, and didn't like it, unlike most of her other books I'd read to that point. A couple years later I read it again. It didn't take long before I was pretty sure I'd identified why I didn't like it, but I finished it anyway. And that's the last time I'll ever read it, because now I know. It's not because it isn't well-written. It's because it is well-written. Bradley somehow managed to write a 900-page novel in which I could not find a single likeable character*… and she did it very well indeed.

See Mr. Twain's rule #10.

-

I think most writers who existed before "How to Get Published" books, blogs, or forums just read widely and did exactly what you said: tried to do what their favorite authors were doing in a different way (or sometimes even the same way).

Most, I imagine, still do. And I'd say it's still the best way to develop one's writing. Rules aid mostly in eliminating mistakes and providing a solid base… and, frequently, aiding in identifying what it is your favorite author does. That is, they give you a starting point: "Does X do this? Okay… how does X do this?" Which is the crucial factor. You can't try to do what your favorite author did if you don't even know what it is he did which makes you like his writing. You can mirror overt things such as plot or broad genre-defining qualities readily enough (you want to write epic fantasy, so you make it long )… but how do you prevent it from being drivel? It isn't necessarily that beginners want easy ways out (I'm sure most would love to have some: I know I would), so much as wanting some way to gain traction on a seemingly esoteric craft, to begin to pick it apart and determine why you like X, think Y is okay, and desperately want to avoid sounding like Z.

In some cases, it's even fairly obvious one author is trying to duplicate what another one did: in Steven Brust's early work, he transparently strove to mimic Roger Zelazny's style–and openly, and would have been thrilled by the comparison. He has long since developed his own voice… which still sounds like Zelazny, and I'm sure he's still happy to be likened to him, and who could blame him?

Me, I try to write like the both of 'em. And would be ecstatic to be considered worthy of comparison to either.

-

* Seriously: my favorite character was Accolon. Raise your hand if you do not need to Google the name.

 

[rhd]

The science of writing SF | Books | theguardian.com

Short article I just read, thought I'd share on this thread instead of starting a new one. The comments are always fun.