• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Serious writer voice

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
She fusses a bit, but I more or less agree with her. I would pare it down a bit.

Don't break rules. Except on purpose.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
She fusses a bit, but I more or less agree with her. I would pare it down a bit.

Don't break rules. Except on purpose.

Yes, I think the simplification holds up generally. The problem in many critiques is the critiquer doesn't give any thought to context or whether something works, it's more just "Hey, that's a rule I heard, I better say it."
 

Demesnedenoir

Myth Weaver
I'd guess that as an oversimplification. Yes, I'm sure it happens, but it's also an easy defense mechanism for the writer to deflect a critique. The beauty of critiques is not their ability to tell you what is right or wrong, but that they should make you think about whatever is said and consider the possibility of making whatever different, potentially better.

My dream critique to give right now would be to walk up to Brandon Sanderson, shake him, and ask, "What the heck is up with using 'slightly' 179 times in the first Mistborn?! By the time I was done with the book I was chuckling every time I read the word." Crutch words are funny, hopefully someday I'll be published so someone can come up and drive me nuts with a stupid question/critique, heh heh.

Yes, I think the simplification holds up generally. The problem in many critiques is the critiquer doesn't give any thought to context or whether something works, it's more just "Hey, that's a rule I heard, I better say it."
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
First time I noticed this was in Dune. Never noticed when I read it the first time; loved the novel. But then I read it aloud to my wife and I swear the man used "barked" as a said-ism 853 times (figure approximate). It got to the point where I was substituting "said" on my own.

There is also the broader problem that critiquers are generally untrained and don't always give the manuscript full attention. I know I've been guilty of that. I completely agree that the author needs to take critiques, reviews and beta reads more as valuable input for the revision process than proscription or prescription.
 
My point of view is that all the writing rules are like training wheels. You use them (and even then, only as much as they're helpful) while you're learning what makes good writing and what makes a good story, but as soon as you've found your voice and can write sound prose, you cast them aside and do whatever seems right to you.

I never really went through the training wheels stage and have been doing whatever I want since I started writing, so it's different for me. Every so often I'll realize that a rule helps my writing and I'll be like "wow! Why didn't I think of this earlier?" To which I will respond, "Because when you hear something your first instinct is to do the exact opposite and make it good anyway." Yeah. I've never been much for following rules.

I stand by the idea that writers have to have enough confidence in their own ability, their own voice, and their own story to tell when a criticism is not helpful and stand up to it. Application of all the rules isn't necessarily going to make a story better.

Edit: There's a golden mean between deflecting every criticism and absorbing every criticism. You have to listen to and process criticism. The trouble comes when you either assume they know better and are right all the time or assume you know better and are right all the time. You don't grow either way.
 
Last edited:

Demesnedenoir

Myth Weaver
Now you've done it for me... I was considering re-reading Dune, but I will notice that all the time, heh heh.


First time I noticed this was in Dune. Never noticed when I read it the first time; loved the novel. But then I read it aloud to my wife and I swear the man used "barked" as a said-ism 853 times (figure approximate). It got to the point where I was substituting "said" on my own.

There is also the broader problem that critiquers are generally untrained and don't always give the manuscript full attention. I know I've been guilty of that. I completely agree that the author needs to take critiques, reviews and beta reads more as valuable input for the revision process than proscription or prescription.
 
People forget the Barbossa threshold rule about rules. They're more like guidelines than actual rules. I often finding myself repeating a word on a single page for example, particularly when the word I intend on using is a term specific to my work. Like talisman, I use that word a lot. It has a very specific meaning within one of my works. I had a paragraph where my character was etching a talisman. I used the word three times. A critique mentioned it and said it was boring. They said I should find synonyms. So I searched for one. Charm,juju, trinket,none worked. Why? Because none of them carried the specific meaning of a circular piece of metal with a magical seal that channels energy for a specific purpose.

But I learned something important. That rules are guidelines. They can ensure a threshold of competence. In fact i would argue that one shouldn't break a rule without there being a reasonably articulable reason for doing so and that said reason is necessary to enhance the enjoyment of the story or the prose.
 

Mythopoet

Auror
First time I noticed this was in Dune. Never noticed when I read it the first time; loved the novel. But then I read it aloud to my wife and I swear the man used "barked" as a said-ism 853 times (figure approximate). It got to the point where I was substituting "said" on my own.

There is also the broader problem that critiquers are generally untrained and don't always give the manuscript full attention. I know I've been guilty of that. I completely agree that the author needs to take critiques, reviews and beta reads more as valuable input for the revision process than proscription or prescription.

It's probably because you're subconsciously reading it as a writer. Writers notice these things. Casual readers generally don't. I remember rereading a Harry Potter book after I had begun to take writing seriously and began noticing the incredible amount of adverbs used. I had never noticed such a thing when just reading them as a reader. But my writer head picked up on all those things that the industry tells us are bad. Once I realized I was doing it I was able to convince myself to read as a reader again instead of as a writer so I can actually enjoy what I read. I would be willing to bet that 75% of books you read are full of stuff that break the rules but you just don't notice it if you're immersed in the story instead of analyzing the words.

And that's why critique from fellow writers is such a hazard to non-professional writers. Because most writers who give critiques are NOT critiquing as a reader. They're critiquing as a writer and almost certainly approaching the work (subconsciously) in an attitude of "how would I write this story?" It's the instinctive way humans approach the work of others and something that you have to become conscious of and train yourself to avoid if you actually want to give valuable critique. Your odds of getting valuable feedback are immensely better if you just get regular people who read your genre to read it and give you their thoughts.
 
It's probably because you're subconsciously reading it as a writer. Writers notice these things. Casual readers generally don't. I remember rereading a Harry Potter book after I had begun to take writing seriously and began noticing the incredible amount of adverbs used. I had never noticed such a thing when just reading them as a reader. But my writer head picked up on all those things that the industry tells us are bad. Once I realized I was doing it I was able to convince myself to read as a reader again instead of as a writer so I can actually enjoy what I read. I would be willing to bet that 75% of books you read are full of stuff that break the rules but you just don't notice it if you're immersed in the story instead of analyzing the words.

And that's why critique from fellow writers is such a hazard to non-professional writers. Because most writers who give critiques are NOT critiquing as a reader. They're critiquing as a writer and almost certainly approaching the work (subconsciously) in an attitude of "how would I write this story?" It's the instinctive way humans approach the work of others and something that you have to become conscious of and train yourself to avoid if you actually want to give valuable critique. Your odds of getting valuable feedback are immensely better if you just get regular people who read your genre to read it and give you their thoughts.

^This!

Writers are going to approach a story in a different way than a reader would. Often, in a critique, a writer's own opinions and tastes in writing will intrude. They won't process the writing in a way that a reader would, and they often won't be able to give feedback that shows how a reader would react.

And, yes, I noticed that in my last re-read of Harry Potter! I was like "Adverbial dialogue tags! Adverbial dialogue tags everywhere!" (Dragon said exasperatedly.) Worse, the adverbial dialogue tags started showing up in my writing while I was reading...I guess they're catching. O_O
 

Demesnedenoir

Myth Weaver
Adverbs in tags will not kill my read by themselves... But, writers who use them tend to have other writing habits I don't like. I can't read the Potter books, but it's not the dialogue tags that do it. It's more symptom than a disease. YA books tend to be more forgiving of adverbs in general.

And absolutely, writers are not the most reliable readers... but then who is? Everything is so taste based. I've met people who seem to love everything they read, which does damned little good too, LOL. Listen to everyone, be prepared to ignore every one of them not paying you, heh heh.
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
Do I want to try to figure out how one says something "ejaculatively?"

They shout or exclaim. Or declaim. Yell. I don't know; I'm just throwing things out here. <dumb Latin joke>

Anyone here ever read From Here to Eternity? James Jones deliberately overused adverbial speech tags. I can't find the exact line any more, but there was one classic use: " ..., he said adverbially." Really. He really did that.
 
Top