Voice? How and how much?

[Malik]

I would advise people to stop worrying about anything formulaic, and work on substantive content. Work on using the right word, on creating identifiable characters, on taking an old idea and spit-polishing it so that it appears new, on creating an immersive world, on your comedic mind (everyone needs a laugh once in a while), on your dramatic heart, and, finally, creating a great story.

Also this.

That said, I want to throw a rock at the nest.

Writing is an academic pursuit. It's research and experimentation and then documenting what you've found.

You absolutely have to, have to, HAVE TO understand the rules of the language first. You have to know what the traditionally accepted norms are in your chosen genre, and you have to understand the craft of writing enough to understand why those norms exist. You don't have to adhere to them. But you have to know them. You have to know when you're going over them. (EDIT: If you don't understand why you need to know this, then you really need to learn all of this. Immediately. Drop everything and start researching.)

Studying composition feels like digging ditches. It sucks. So does literary analysis and deconstruction, both of which, to me, feel like looking backstage at Disneyland and seeing guys pushing mops and dumpsters around, and someone in a Mickey suit smoking a cigarette with the head under his arm. But you have to go there if you want to work there.

Work on your prose. Write until your fingers bleed. Find your voice. But do your homework or you'll waste years.

 

[Steerpike]

You absolutely have to, have to, HAVE TO understand the rules of the language first. You have to know what the traditionally accepted norms are in your chosen genre, and you have to understand the craft of writing enough to understand why those norms exist. You don't have to adhere to them. But you have to know them.

The part I put in bold is the part that gets left out by so often, and instead you have people dispensing "rules" advice as though it is necessary that one follow them in any given instance to have "good writing." Which is what we lawyers call 'a load of bollocks.'

 

[Scribble]

The part I put in bold is the part that gets left out by so often, and instead you have people dispensing "rules" advice as though it is necessary that one follow them in any given instance to have "good writing." Which is what we lawyers call 'a load of bollocks.'

Amen. My daughter at 5 said it best when coloring with crayons:

The lines are just a suggestion.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Studying composition feels like digging ditches. It sucks. So does literary analysis and deconstruction, both of which, to me, feel like looking backstage at Disneyland and seeing guys pushing mops and dumpsters around, and someone in a Mickey suit smoking a cigarette with the head under his arm. But you have to go there if you want to work there.

That made me laugh.

 

[GeekDavid]

The part I put in bold is the part that gets left out by so often, and instead you have people dispensing "rules" advice as though it is necessary that one follow them in any given instance to have "good writing." Which is what we lawyers call 'a load of bollocks.'

Exactly. That's why I compared it to computer programming. In programming, a single missed punctuation mark can cause the whole program to crash. Some people insist that fiction writing is the same, that if you don't follow every single rule the book won't be "good" and will "crash" (as in not sell).

However, fiction writing is not computer programming, and that's shown by the examples I cited above. You can break the "rules" in any number of ways and still have a runaway bestseller on your hands. If you tell an engaging story people won't care how often you use adverbs or The Ten Words That Shall Not Be Written. They'll be too immersed in the story to even notice it most of the time.

 

[BWFoster78]

Studying composition feels like digging ditches. It sucks. So does literary analysis and deconstruction, both of which, to me, feel like looking backstage at Disneyland and seeing guys pushing mops and dumpsters around, and someone in a Mickey suit smoking a cigarette with the head under his arm. But you have to go there if you want to work there.

Work on your prose. Write until your fingers bleed. Find your voice. But do your homework or you'll waste years.

This is well-stated.

I think one of the problems with a lot of self-published authors is that too many of them have the belief that writing fiction is something that one can pick up from high school English and doing a lot of pleasure reading.

I simply do not believe that is the case. To write fiction well, you simply must learn, by whatever method, how to write fiction.

 

[Malik]

I really do think, based on what I see in a lot of self-published fantasy and fiction, that there's a mass delusion among young writers that writing a best-selling novel is akin to becoming famous from posting a YouTube video. I really think it's symptomatic and generational to believe that you can be wildly successful without putting the hard, grinding, awful work in. But then, maybe I'm just old.

EDIT: Perhaps young writers think that putting 60-100,000 words on paper is hard, grinding, awful work. They haven't put enough time in at the rudiments of the craft to realize that writing all those words is the fun part.

 

[GeekDavid]

I really do think, based on what I see in a lot of self-published fantasy and fiction, that there's a mass delusion among young writers that writing a best-selling novel is akin to becoming famous from posting a YouTube video. I really think it's symptomatic and generational to believe that you can be wildly successful without putting the hard, grinding, awful work in. But then, maybe I'm just old.

True, but that doesn't mean that will find success by blindly following a formulaic rules-laden approach to writing either. The best you'll get out of that is something that reads like it was written by a computer. The spark of creativity has to be there, and the author's voice has to come through -- something far too many of the "rules" conveniently forget.

Too often the "rules" seem to want to stifle the author's voice. Some authors write adverb-heavy prose, and it works for them (see JK Rowling). Some authors write using The Ten Words That Shall Not Be Written and do just fine. Asimov himself broke a cardinal rule of science fiction by not including a single alien species in any of his works... at a time when authors like EE "Doc" Smith, Robert Heinlein, and Arthur C. Clarke were coming up with aliens aplenty. Did breaking the rule not once but over and over and over again hurt Asimov's career? What's interesting is that after Asimov passed on, Gregory Benford took over the Foundation stories, and started including aliens, in accordance with the "rules" of science fiction. His first book such book, Foundation's Fear, is currently rated at just 2 stars on Amazon.

So much for "follow the rules and you'll be successful." It doesn't always work. In fact, I bet you could find a book from every well-known author that breaks at least one of the "rules" that those who've never written a best-seller try to sell to gullible authors.

 

[Malik]

That is true, but what makes a master stylist is the ability to meaningfully break the rules. You can't meaningfully break the rules unless you learn them, first. You absolutely, absolutely, have to learn them. And the only way to learn them is to write within them, even if it's writing stuff you don't publish or don't intend to.

I write every day. Even if it's something I'm not getting paid for, or not part of my series, or something I would never, in a hundred years, want someone to read and attribute to me stylistically. Something goes on paper. Every day. Writing is how I tinker around in my shop. Words are my tools. Rules are the safety guides. Many master craftsmen work without safety equipment, but most, if you look closely, are missing a fingertip.

 

[Scribble]

True, but that doesn't mean that will find success by blindly following a formulaic rules-laden approach to writing either. The best you'll get out of that is something that reads like it was written by a computer. The spark of creativity has to be there, and the author's voice has to come through -- something far too many of the "rules" conveniently forget.

Too often the "rules" seem to want to stifle the author's voice. Some authors write adverb-heavy prose, and it works for them (see JK Rowling). Some authors write using The Ten Words That Shall Not Be Written and do just fine. Asimov himself broke a cardinal rule of science fiction by not including a single alien species in any of his works... at a time when authors like EE "Doc" Smith, Robert Heinlein, and Arthur C. Clarke were coming up with aliens aplenty. Did breaking the rule not once but over and over and over again hurt Asimov's career? What's interesting is that after Asimov passed on, Gregory Benford took over the Foundation stories, and started including aliens, in accordance with the "rules" of science fiction. His first book such book, Foundation's Fear, is currently rated at just 2 stars on Amazon.

So much for "follow the rules and you'll be successful." It doesn't always work. In fact, I bet you could find a book from every well-known author that breaks at least one of the "rules" that those who've never written a best-seller try to sell to gullible authors.

This is where I am going to say that writing fiction IS like writing software. There are dozens of methodologies, some obviously less reliable than others, some better than others, and within these nobody can agree on all the finer points. There are some elements of writing that are safe to generalize as good "use words and put them together to make sentences" all the way down to the minutiae of how to put together zippy dialogue or how to use description to convey mood.

If you take a first year programmer and you don't plug him into a methodology, he won't produce anything resembling decent software. The day comes when that programmer will "get it", and will pick and choose his tools from experience. Rules are good for learning and when you are unsure.

There are bad methodologies as far as creativity goes. I hated, hated, RPG programming on AS/400. It was like filling out a form. Way to crush the creative aspects of programming, IBM! Then, I coded in C++ for the rest of the time, enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot! I created some overly complex frameworks in my youthful ambition, I created many problems for myself, but I learned, and I followed the advice of the experts, by and large.

To me, writing is a craft you need to learn. Newbies need rules to keep them from writing garbage.

Guess what? Not every programmer is going to become a great programmer. Most of them will remain as mediocre or poor programmers. The rules will let them do their job reasonably well. They won't write the great stuff, they will fill the shelf with mediocre or poor software. Then, some programmers get that blend of creativity, wisdom, daring, and individuality, and they apply what they've learned (the stuff worth keeping, and the stuff worth avoiding) and they create good software. Sometimes, they create great software.

The same goes for writing. Some people, will simply never be good writers. They can learn all the rules, but they just don't see it, they just don't have the spark. Then, there are people who have the spark, but they never learned enough rules to get anything produced. They don't know what to do, so they don't know what not to do.

 

[GeekDavid]

Okay, Scribble, Malik, I have a challenge for you.

Write me a short story following every single rule that has been written for writers to follow. Then submit it to all the usual short story markets (Asimov's, F&SF, and so on). Then report on how may rejection letters you got before it was accepted.

If the rules really make for good writing, the rejection letters should be zero.

 

[Malik]

I didn't say that following the rules make for good, marketable writing. I said that knowing the rules makes for good, marketable writing. It's painfully apparent when a writer has no clue what they're doing, as opposed to a writer who has a firm grasp of the craft and is clearly making a stylistic point.

 

[BWFoster78]

I really do think, based on what I see in a lot of self-published fantasy and fiction, that there's a mass delusion among young writers that writing a best-selling novel is akin to becoming famous from posting a YouTube video. I really think it's symptomatic and generational to believe that you can be wildly successful without putting the hard, grinding, awful work in. But then, maybe I'm just old.

EDIT: Perhaps young writers think that putting 60-100,000 words on paper is hard, grinding, awful work. They haven't put enough time in at the rudiments of the craft to realize that writing all those words is the fun part.

I'm sure that generational concerns do enter into the picture, but I'm not sure it's the primary problem. At some point, someone said, "Everybody has a book in them." Everyone took that to be true, and it cheapened the work it takes to create something good.

I think it's natural to think, "I like reading; I can do that." Combine that with most would be authors having been good at high school English composition. Add in an easy way to get your work on the market.

It all equals the current quality level.

 

[GeekDavid]

I didn't say that following the rules make for good, marketable writing. I said that knowing the rules makes for good, marketable writing. It's painfully apparent when a writer has no clue what they're doing, as opposed to a writer who is clearly making a stylistic point.

The point is, the people trying to sell these rules to gullible new authors almost always promise something along the lines of "follow this rule, your writing will sell!"

That's just not true. And that's my point. You cannot write saleable fiction by following every single rule that's out there.

 

[Scribble]

I think you missed my point. Rules don't make for "good" writing. If you don't know what the hell you are doing, they at least enable you to produce "mediocre" writing. That last element is vision, creativity, zing, spark, whatever. Good writing skills won't save you from being dull-minded. How many CW grads go on to write utterly boring and vapid, but perfectly written works?

You need both craft and inspiration to produce great fiction, in my opinion.

Lets look at this top ten list of 20th century fiction:


# Year Title Author
1 1922 Ulysses James Joyce
2 1925 The Great Gatsby F. Scott Fitzgerald
3 1916 A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man James Joyce
4 1955 Lolita Vladimir Nabokov
5 1932 Brave New World Aldous Huxley
6 1929 The Sound and the Fury William Faulkner
7 1961 Catch-22 Joseph Heller
8 1940 Darkness at Noon Arthur Koestler
9 1913 Sons and Lovers D. H. Lawrence
10 1939 The Grapes of Wrath John Steinbeck

Are any of these books written by people lacking in strong writing craftmanship? Lacking in vision?

Now, go look at the least sold self-pubbed genre novels, any category you like and compare.

 

[GeekDavid]

Now, go look at the least sold self-pubbed genre novels, any category you like and compare.

Again, with the denigration of self-pubbed authors.

Foundation's Fear was published by a big name house. 2 stars is worse than the average self-pubbed book.

Feist's latest few books were also published by one of the Big Six publishers. There are technical errors all over the place.

Just because someone got through the minefield that was traditional publishing pre-Kindle doesn't mean they were producing good work.

And just because someone is self-published doesn't mean their work is dreck. Look at Marion Harmon (if you haven't tried his books, you can't knock them). Look at our own Michael Sullivan, who started off self-pubbed.

There have been writers of varying skill levels since man first put pen to paper. Ye Olden Days before Kindle were not a gold mine of nothing but bestselling books, there were far more flops than bestsellers even with all the gatekeepers making sure every single author followed the rules.

 

[Scribble]

The point is, the people trying to sell these rules to gullible new authors almost always promise something along the lines of "follow this rule, your writing will sell!"

That's just not true. And that's my point. You cannot write saleable fiction by following every single rule that's out there.

It's like anything else. Only a fool gets all his advice from one source. I've been reading Writer's Digest for about 20 years. I read articles that sounded like good advice, and I read some I didn't entirely buy. However, reading all that advice gives you a 360 view of the craft. Following it all slavishly isn't what I recommend for anyone, but getting your ear to the ground about the kind of problems you can have in writing and ways people have figured out how to deal with them is a good way to learning, in my humble opinion.

Teach yourself the things other people know.

When I started trying to write back at 20, all I had was one college writing class. My writing stank. Big ideas, but I didn't know how to put it together.

I don't know everything, but I have learned what works for me. All the advice isn't worth taking. You've got to have some horse-sense. If you weren't born with a nose for bad advice, you should make it your responsibility to learn how it smells.

 

[Malik]

True, but without at least Freshman Comp you're just spinning your wheels. The people explaining the rules to you are trying to help.

It's the difference between Albert Ayler playing "Ghosts" and a six-year-old honking into a saxophone. They may both sound like noise to the uninitiated, but if you know advanced music theory, you can tell Ayler was a genius. His abilities in structure and composition literally transcended what we consider music. We're still trying to figure out where he was coming from. On the other hand, it's not for everyone; you can't dance to it.

Or, for you rock aficionados, compare Jimi Hendrix's Star Spangled Banner versus a ten-year-old just learning how feedback works.

You've got to be able to do it, before you can do it.

 

[GeekDavid]

It's like anything else. Only a fool gets all his advice from one source. I've been reading Writer's Digest for about 20 years. I read articles that sounded like good advice, and I read some I didn't entirely buy. However, reading all that advice gives you a 360 view of the craft. Following it all slavishly isn't what I recommend for anyone, but getting your ear to the ground about the kind of problems you can have in writing and ways people have figured out how to deal with them is a good way to learning, in my humble opinion.

Teach yourself the things other people know.

When I started trying to write back at 20, all I had was one college writing class. My writing stank. Big ideas, but I didn't know how to put it together.

I don't know everything, but I have learned what works for me. All the advice isn't worth taking. You've got to have some horse-sense. If you weren't born with a nose for bad advice, you should make it your responsibility to learn how it smells.

I'll agree with that, but there are people even in these environs who push every rule they see online as the latest "You Must Do This Or Your Book Will Flop" rule.

That's the mindset I am fighting against, and will fight against until I breathe my last. (Oops, I broke a rule there. I didn't say breathe my last what. Do I mean breathe my last song? My last shirt? My last kitten?)

 

[Scribble]

And just because someone is self-published doesn't mean their work is dreck. Look at Marion Harmon (if you haven't tried his books, you can't knock them).

Maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly, but you seem to be glomming onto all the wrong points, or taking the opposite of my meaning.

I never said that, nor do I believe it. I am all for self-pub. What I was saying was, if you want to quickly find an example of bad craft/lame vision, that's the easiest place to find it. Not at the top, at the bottom of the stack. Not a single person besides the author need read the work, they just need to fill out the form and click submit.

The shelves at the store are filled with mediocre writing, but in general a few anecdotes aside, there are a lot of people working to ensure that there is little pure dreck on the shelf.