Rules for Writing · 12:23am Sep 19th, 2015
I—The Inapplicability of Rules for Writers
Recently, there’s been a bit of a low-grade kerfuffle (edging into ‘rumpus,’ but far from ‘fracas,’ on the International Local Newspaper Scale of Disturbances) on a recent blogpost by the amazing and talented Bookplayer. The argument was around writing rules and when they do or don’t apply. I’m not going to address the kerfuffle directly, and I suggest you, dear reader, don’t either. It would be unproductive, I suspect. What I am interested in, is the general shape for the argument which I’ll present to you socratically[1]:
LEGIFERA: I contend that writing would be much improved if you followed certain rules, and I’ve taken the liberty of drawing up a list. Firstly, you should not tell but only—
LIBERTUS: Hold, friend Legifera, before we listen to your rules, we need to address the issue of whether rules even apply to writers. Surely, a writer is best defined by their creativity?
LEGIFERA: I can grant that.
LIBERTUS: Then how can an endeavor marked most by its creativity be circumscribed by rules? Wouldn’t following these rules fetter creativity? And wouldn’t the tales of all conscientious rule-followers be identical?
LEGIFERA: Ah, but I can easily overcome that issue. These rules, you see, can be broken. None are iron-clad, so you see there’s room for creativity.
LIBERTUS: So they are breakable rules?
LEGIFERA: Yes.
LIBERTUS: When may they be broken?
LEGIFERA: Well, you can break them if you know what you are doing?
LIBERTUS: I see. So these are not writers’ rules, but rather rules for bad writers?
LEGIFERA: No!
LIBERTUS: Well, how else would you describe a writer who doesn’t know what they are doing?
LEGIFERA: Anyone can break these rules, but the trick is to know under which circumstances and how to do so.
LIBERTUS: So it is clear when the rules can be broken, and how to do so, it’s only a matter of knowing how?
LEGIFERA: Yes.
LIBERTUS: Doesn’t this imply a set of meta-rules that define when the rules hold and when they don’t and prescribe the correct courses of action when one does break them?
LEGIFERA: I don’t see how it does.
LIBERTUS: Well, how else do the writers who know what they are doing know this thing that they are doing? Do you mean to say that some just are writers and some just aren’t?
LEGIFERA: No, writing can be learned, which is rather the point of having rules.
LIBERTUS: And this which is learned, what can it be but a certain set of rules and actions both prescribed and proscribed?
LEGIFERA: I concede the point.
LIBERTUS: In which case your rules are useless without the meta-rules which we discussed.
LEGIFERA: Well, could I then write out meta-rules as well? For instance when you are writing a pastiche of a Victorian novel then telling is a good idea and—
LIBERTUS: The difficulty there, I fear, is that the existence of these meta-rules brings us to the start of this discussion. Are the meta-rules ironclad?
LEGIFERA: No, they can be broken… Ah, I see.
LIBERTUS: And so we are caught in an infinite regress with no clear termination in sight.
LEGIFERA: Well! We certainly seem to have reached a socratically appropriate state of aporia.
LIBERTUS: Indeed. Good thing too, because I can’t stand being written by this idiot.
LEGIFERA: Yes. Most annoying.
LEGIFERA and LIBERTUS both glare at the WRITER until he leaves.
That’s roughly the argument or rather an idealized version that has all the shouting and hand-waving boiled out of it. Generally things break down before the aporia, but I suspect this is how the argument would go. The question of rules in writing is a tricky one, and I suggest that it is a question of word-choice.
[1] With shades of Galileo thrown in for the names. And I note, with trepidation, that I’ve invoked the shades of two men both of whom got screwed by indulging in some harmless philosophy. At least I didn’t call anyone ‘Simplicio.’
II—An Australia of the Mind
So which choice should we adopt if not ‘rules’ for writing? Or suggestions, heuristics, best practices &c &c &c?
Well, let me paint you an allegorical picture:
Imagine us all as explorers in this vast trackless landscape of such inherent danger and mindless malice that it can only be described as ‘Australian.’ This landscape is full of deadly drop-bears, free-floating box jellyfish, lethal ninja-sheep, deadfalls, inclement weather, and substandard Wi-Fi reception. We all derive sometimes material gain, but mostly a mad sort of pleasure from traversing this place, trying to learn its secrets and completing journeys across it in as little time as possible. And since we are fond of each other we seek to help. Sometimes it’s sharing tales of our exploits around a cheery venom-fire, but mostly (since the place is vast, and we rarely meet) it’s in leaving signposts.
Whenever we stumble, bleeding heavily, from a thicket infested with drop-bears, or limp out of a gulch protected by a dojo of ninja-sheep, we stop for a second, and scribble a description of the hazard on some handy bit of rock: “DROP-BEARS AHEAD” or “WARE THE NINJA-SHEEP.” Now, we don’t demand that people follow our signposts. Indeed, we privately suspect that an experienced explorer might carve the way through with a machete and a suitable supply of dynamite, but it’s still dangerous and we think they’d appreciate the heads-up.
And when we find a sign left by someone else warning us of HEATSEEKING CROCODILES AHEAD, we make a calculation. Can we fight them off? Do we have enough heat signature-obscuring mud to daube ourselves? Can we get to the choppa without incident? Either way, the information is precious to us.
To have someone react to every signpost with a defiant “Well what do I care that there are INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC SHARKS in that gulch? I’m no slave of any random signpost writer! I’ll power ahead! That’ll show them! That’ll show them all!” would just be silly and lead to a drastically increased insurance premium. On the other hand, if nobody ever cuts across cross-country and ignores the odd sign warning of CANNIBAL GOURD SWARMS, we’d all take ages to get anywhere and we’d get very little exploring done.
III—Ghost Sucks at Allegories
So, yeah. They aren’t writing rules. They are writing signposts.
The correspondence, I think, holds. Because ‘Don’t write a Red-and-Black Alicorn OC Self-Insert’ isn’t a rule. I can guarantee you could write a good story under that constraint[2]. Indeed, you’d have to go pretty damn extreme with your premise to get a story that can’t be written without a miracle occurring. What ‘Don’t write a Red-and-Black Alicorn OC Self-Insert’ really is, is a dire warning: “Dear Writer, ahead is a Deficit of Credibility, Lethal Cliche-Storms, Subjectivity Pitfalls, with a severe threat of mistaking personal fantasy for enjoyable story.” Can you brave all these hazards? Well. Yes. It’s possible. Is it likely, though? Well… no. The most probable outcome is ruin: the path you’ll walk is thick with the bones of those who came before. Don’t brave the Red-and-Black Alicorn OC Self-Insert Straits without good cause.
Of course, it’s easier to call them rules just as it is easier to say “Show don’t tell” (which is nonsense[3]) rather than, say, “Consider that when you tell your reader what to think of a character, the reader may object,” or, “WARNING READER REVOLT HAZARD TURN BACK.” And that’s not necessarily wrong since we often don’t even know what precisely will go wrong when we do something. All we know is that people wander into the, say, Second Person Forest, and very few make it back out. We don’t know precisely what the problem is so we just shrug and write “Don’t Go Into The Forest” on easily visible signs.
Still, even if it is easier and more natural to think of them as rules and formulate them as rules, these still aren’t rules, and thinking about them like that while having the argument between Legifera and Libertus will just lead to a lot of unnecessary shouting.
[2] Indeed, Bad Horse did.
[3] I recently learned that “Show don’t tell” both as a concept and as a phrasing is a product of the Modernist era and came about from a direct backlash against the older style of writing which was fond of the ol’ third person omniscient.
Seconded. Please don't. Let me preserve what little sanity and dignity I have left.
...honestly though, I think this is a good case for the old adage: Even a broken (non-Military) clock is right two (to three) times a day.
You know, I think I'm going to replace all of my "Of course there are exceptions..." disclaimers and comments with "Standard Ghost Disclaimer" and a link to this post.
I demand that this be the title of something. I won't even demand that it include any of the fantastical nonsense stuff featured in that section of the blog post.
That does seem like a very good way of looking at the matter. Thank you for it. Now, could someone kindly explain how to navigate this nest of acid-drooling ants the size of my palm? I could've sworn I had a cheat sheet here somewhere...
Some of us didn't get the signpost when we were born here. Sigh...
A correspondant asks why Stockrates was always hanging around corners with a bevy of handsome young Haylenes. He was waiting for a streetcar.
--Will Cloppy, The Decline and Fall of Practically Everypony
This is an excellent analogy. Plus it has drop bears which make everything more classy.
3402163 Sounds like you need an aardvark with an ulcer to help you get rid of all that ant acid.
I think it's just a semantics argument at this point. Advice like "Use punctuation" applies to 99% of writers, so I'm going to continue calling it a rule.
3402148
It's not quite the same, but "Australia of the mind" is an archaic term for schizophrenia.
3402316
This should be taken into consideration.
The whole of section two made me laugh. Thank you.
My particular favorite is the Intercontinental Ballistic Sharks. IBSs are now my new WMD of choice.
3402315
Your pun made me almost perform a spit-take, instead of that I instead chose to choke on my drink so I would not have to perform the clean up.
On a completely irrelevent note, this sounds much like a description of playing Sunless Sea. Or Dark Souls.
You started with socratic discussion and then moved to a Predator reference via Australia. This is awesome.
How about we all just say "Are you unhappy with your writing? Look at this list of tips to see if employing one of them will help you gain greater satisfaction with your art! If you are happy with your writing, more power to ya!" Don't see why there has to be any form of either fracas or ruckus about this.
I say that they are rules and that it is possible that meta-rules on when to break them could be formulated (and meta-meta-rules as well)
but going into the meta-rules will needlessly complicate things (and every level further by exponential degrees)
also, the rules are for new writers and, while a new writer might do well when ignoring them, that will be a rare case because even experienced writers are likely to make a bad story when ignoring them.
also, while 'show don't tell' is a relatively recent idea, the classical writers had a better grasp on the idea of an omniscient narrator and even their stories tended to be dry.
what we have now are a whole lot of new writers who need the rules as well as an explanation of why they are rules. Once you understand why you shouldn't write your OC into an alicorn, you'll have a decent idea of when it's okay to
The better analogy is a parent telling their child "don't touch the stove"
when the child gets to a point where they can understand what parts of the stove get hot and what needs to be kept away from that heat, they can start using the stove in a safe way (still might burn themselves, their food, and the random object that shouldn't be on a burner, but will know why they messed up and how to prevent it in the future)
Interesting; thanks.
I definitely think this is a good post, Ghost, but I do believe there is a simple flaw in the argument in part 1.
Here, when asked when a writer may break this rules, LEGIFERA answers
and the rest of the discussion focuses on this.
They never consider any alternative answers to the question.
For one, I would like for us to consider the following answer:
And bam, the recursive issue has now been solved; A set of meta-rules(with their own meta-rules... et cetera) is no longer needed, as it now simply boils down to the subjective judgement[1].
Besides, I would argue that this is much closer to the reality of rule-breaking anyways; An author can never really know if they know what they are doing, they can only guess or assume.
[1] Which can be arbitrary
The one and only rule of writing is this: Do not break any of the other "rules" of writing unless you have a specific reason. That reason can be anything as long as you're doing it on purpose, and not just out of laziness or ignorance.
A few of the rules have so many valid reasons to make exceptions that people reflexively try to wrap them in exceptions (example: You should write in third person... unless you meet one of a laundry list of conditions which makes first person more effective). A few rules have so few exceptions that they appear at first glance to have none (for instance, "Use proper spelling and punctuation" can be broken if you're writing in-character as someone young/uneducated/rushed/distracted/etc, especially for short segments of the story. "Tell events in chronological order except for explicit flashbacks" can be broken if you're Quentin Tarantino).
For many rules, the most common valid exception is "I'm flagrantly breaking this rule on purpose to make people laugh." And that's ok too. But it's not the only valid exception.
((Anyways, I loved your Australia analogy. Your blog posts are always a wild ride.))
3402428
Well... A writer can break the rules if they think they know what they're doing.
Whether or not it turns out well will prove if what they think is right.
3402417
I concur with tosety, there are rules and laws. The problem is we don't know them. We navigate blindly a code of law thrown together by a horny monkey, a very civilized and stiff gentleman/woman/other, a slightly less gentle young punk with a crowbar, a gibbering poet under hallucinogenic substances and a geek with a lot of time on his hands. So we stumble in things, get the dropbear punishment, come out bleeding and cursing and leave a vague indication that there are some rules ahead, that they probably have something to do with "showing and don't telling" but beat me with a platypus if I know what they exactly want from me.
All this to say, great post, it is a nice, rational way to look at the debate.
Very wisely (and non-offensively) put, Ghost. I really liked that analogy, too. Personally, I've come to frame the issue as thus: the only "rule" that matters is to achieve what you want as the writer. This sounds like a license to simply do as you please, but if you're properly honest with yourself, I think you'll quickly realize that one thing you want very dearly is for readers to enjoy your work.
How to accomplish this? Well, readers are people and people generally behave alike, and some things tend to make them happy while others tend not to. And so floods in all the preexisting guidelines about good characterization and plotting and pacing and significant meaning. You'll want to consider them carefully, not because they are rules, but because they are how you fulfill your desire to satisfy your readers. By listening to them you aren't surrendering your free spirit or creativity, you are getting something you want.
It gets complicated when you carry equal desire to honestly express yourself and do it in a way that others will enjoy and understand properly (i.e. be artsy and widely liked). That's where true creativity comes in, IMO.
...you need to write a blog post about this. Honestly. The fanfiction community needs all the help in correcting the misunderstandings of this maxim that it can get. Pleeeeeeaaaase knowledge is power don't let it go to waste! Join the resistance! Fight the good fight! Make me a ham sandwich!
Write that blog post!
As a side note, I feel it was also influenced by the domination of the motion picture, where most times you couldn't exactly just say what a character was thinking or feeling. I believe this is evident in how often advocates of the rule use film analogies to help explain it. "Tell me what the camera sees," they say. Many writers nowadays think of writing through the medium of film, I think.
Only you could deconstruct an internet argument, in an affable yet cultured tone, all the while being supremely amusing, and not come out with a face-full of dropbears. You are magical and I wish for your eternal presence, even though I know it cannot last.
3402387
Or, in fact, visiting Australia.
I'm afraid there are quite a few things I need to correct you on in this, Ghost.
First of all, they aren't 'deadly' drop-bears or 'lethal' ninja-sheep. It's redundant. They are synonyms for the concept of deadly. Are you aware that sheep crept up on a farmer sleeping in his field, nudged his gun so it was aimed at his head, then stepped on its trigger? Because that actually happened. Truly!
To this day though, nobody is certain of which sheep it was.
Second of all, venom-fires are a bad idea. Though highly flammable and with a steady burn, most Australian venom-fires more often then not create a potent toxic aerosol in the fumes, and now you're breathing it in. The rest of the time it's a potent hallucinogenic, which is fine when you're in the Mojave desert and the worst you got to to fear is a rattlesnake, but here it's much worse.
Third, a machete is inferior to the Australian bush-knife, but acceptable. The dynamite, however, is best left unused against malicious boxing-kangaroos. They just kick it back to you, with some great force.
It's mistakes like this that cost us The Great Emu War.
Fourth, misunderstanding of basic warning signs. For instance, the heatseeking crocodile one is a fundamental misunderstanding of the message. It means the crocodiles are looking for sunlight to bathe themselves in. Obscuring yourself in daube or mud is not only wholly ineffective, but a waste of time and horribly uncomfortable. Instead, stay out of the patches of light, steer clear of warm stones in bright sunlight, and possibly block out the sun in totality so the cold-bloods are slowed to a standstill.
And, of course, cannibal gourd swarm signs is actually a warning to other gourd swarms, who are capable of writing warnings to each other by dint of being gestalt entities with collective intelligence and, recently, collective bargaining rights at the bricklayer's union.
The ballistic sharks one, though, is spot-on. It's why freight shipping is so expensive, truly.
The rest of your fine and thoughtful piece is unfortunately detracted only by these minor, potentially life-risking quibbles.
Amusing, erudite and thoughtful posting, GoH!
When you think about it, it's amazing how much of common rules of writing are intended to ensure you end up writing the sort of sparse prose Modernists liked.
There is a huge distinction between the basic rules of writing (which tell me how to put sentences together, spelling, how to grammar), and what I can essentially call Style Guides, the content of which would essentially rain over this paragraph.
It is true that in a living language (such as English) the rules are shifting all the time. When I was at school I had access to (but never, thankfully, had to use) the very old English textbooks that insisted no conjugating verbs and declining nouns in an old-fashioned attempt to make English work like Latin. It wasn't 'till I started learning French that I discovered that words could have sex[1]. That's before we start on the separation of written and spoken English.
But there are still basic rules to be followed, just so the other person can understand what you are writing. If I started trying to write as if I was writing Latin[2] it is quite possible that some readers would either not understand or think I am an idiot[3].
Otherwise you end up with the generation after mine that was taught that grammar, spelling and writing didn't matter. It was the ideas that counted. Guess how that turned out?
[1] OK, "Gender". I was a schoolboy then.
[2] A blight on my schooldays, but it was only one term before I was asked to leave the class and it did at least make French more bearable.
[3] OK, a lucky guess.
3402387
This was my thought exactly.
3402316
Timothy Dexter's bestseller.
And this is not one of those extremes, somehow.
The number of ways in which words may be organized to tell a story, is huge. Any rule or rules about how to organize those words would describe only a subset of those ways. Writers who experiment and explore are constantly coming up with new rules.
So all this talk of "breaking rules" and "meta-rules" seems mistaken. When you "break" a rule you've actually discovered circumstances in which other rules apply, or at least predominate--you know, like going from Newtonian mechanics (the physics of things you can drop on your foot) to quantum mechanics (the physics of very small masses and energies) or relativistic mechanics (very large masses and energies). And "meta-rules" are actually just rules that affect other rules, but need not always be considered (like the relativistic effects of train travel, or the quantum uncertainty of that bowling ball you dropped on your foot).
Also, there's this: it's quite possible to play excellent baseball or football--games predicated entirely upon physics--without any knowledge of physics at all. In other words, for some writers...
jonnegroni.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/575544_645060515510809_886163283_n.jpg
"It's not something you study, y'just do it!"
(Now I'm imagining sitting in Bad Horse's Literary Physics 101 class, trying to copy what's on the blackboard, only I can't see over GaPJaxie and PatchworkPoltergeist in the front row).
I've been phrasing it as, "Know what you're doing and why you're doing it." For those who know what they're doing and are prepared for the various pitfalls, the signpost analogy fits. If, on the other hand, you aren't carrying a shotgun, three katanas, a towel, at least 40 feet of rope, and a breath mint, they are rules, and you should steer clear, no matter how badly commas are abused in the process.
3402163
↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A
3402462
I was about to take exception to your rule about chronological order, as many book series are written out of chronological order and should be read that way
buuuuuut
then I realized that an inexperienced writer should not attempt this, and I only objected because it's one of the easiest rules to understand enough to break (and will often produce a better story when broken correctly)
3402521
great way to put it, since the addition of the word 'think' adds the understanding that wrong assumptions and conclusions are easy to make and the proof will always be in the final product
3402802
*nods seriously*
3403244
I heartily agree.
Sometimes, through accident or on purpose, you may find yourself abusing, but necessarily so, the pause that clarifies, adds drama, or otherwise enhances your writing; something best represented by a comma and often considered to be a run-on sentence.
Still, it is a good habit to be in to break such sentences up. Even the best writers can overuse something.
3403741
Ha! I don't need that cheat code because, as an amateur author, I already have infinite lives
3402316 I'd really like to know where you discovered that term as its a fascinating idea. sadly google leads me only to ancient stories and this blog post n__n
re: cannibal gourd swarm
Hiya, Ghost Of Heraclitus!
I don't know about this kerfuffle so I'm going to do as you recommend and not address it.
The thing I want to ask though is this; were you referencing the vampire gourds in Ursula Vernon's Digger?
If so, then I may love you more than MerlosTheMad.
While I know there's a distinct difference between vampires and cannibals the gourds just seem too random an element to be anything else.
If not, then I apologise for leaping to an erroneous assumption and commend you on the accuracy of your depiction of Hosstralian life.
If you haven't also read Digger then I very strongly recommend you do so at your own convenience.
Regards,
Crystal Waters.
The only thing preventing me from not writing a fanfic about section 2 is the fact that I'm pretty sure I cannot properly voice either you or Bad Horse.
Alas, I have yet again run into the desert of addressing people in the second and third person simultaneously; it always sounds awkward to me.
3402136
Sanity?
Dignity?
You are a writer, yes?
3402390
I think the real problem is that they more or less are rules for bad writers, and are guidelines for more advanced ones. People resent the idea that they need to stick to the beaten path when there is this pretty flower on the other side of this harmless-looking patch of sand with a badly worn sign that simply says CARNIVOROUS.
I mean, the flower is RIGHT THERE. How bad could it possibly be?
And of course, the worst of it is that sometimes they'll take heroic measures to propel themselves beyond that patch of sand, bend over to smell the flower, and lose their nose before realizing that they completely misunderstood the sign.
3403207
I think writing is more like building boats. People built boats before Archimedes ran naked down the street, dripping water and shouting, but understanding the principles of it allowed us to build considerably better ones. I think that the people who are good at writing and "just do it" tend to have an intuitive grasp of the rules; the difficulty comes in articulating them, because it is extremely difficult at times to truly understand the workings of your own mind in real-time. Thus, the rules of writing are forever a hodge-podge of retrospection, where we look back at ourselves and say, "What was I thinking?"
3404398
Nah I'm just fucking with ya.
3405910 Darn.
3402921
Oh man, it's sort of a shame that you were talking about noun gender, because the idea of words having sex is a great description of poetry.
3408490
Which means that my English Lit classes must have been the world's first educational contraceptive.
I mean no disrespect to my English teachers who were (mostly) great guys, but four years of English Lit was enough to put me off poetry pretty much forever.
A well put and entertaining description of the 'rules' of writing.
...
As I have absolutely nothing else to say about your main point, I will now proceed to object to the smallest and most irrelevant details of your post. Specifically;
Not so. Socrates' case is a bit murkier, as, whilst he _was_ prosecuted for his philosophy, it was also his philosophy that convinced him not to escape his death when given the opportunity.
More clear-cut is the case of Gallileo. He was tried not so much for his belief of heliocentrism, but his insistence upon teaching it as fact despite having significant holes in the theory. The Church had, for many years, tolerated astronomers using heliocentrism as a trick to make the maths easier - but to understand it to be literal would require a reinterpretation of Scripture, and therefore conclusive proof was demanded... which Galileo could not provide (indeed, the Copernican model being false, it would have been odd if he _were_ able to provide it).
His _second_ trial came about as a matter of ignoring the sentence from the first one, and (intentionally or not) ridiculing the Pope (who, at the time was sovereign of one of the more powerful states in Italy, as well as head of the religion of most of Europe).
Finally, I would argue that Galileo was not so much a philosopher as a scientist, the two disciplines having long since diverged by that point, and that he was a _bad_ one, at that, seeing that he accepted a theory as fact without anything approaching conclusive proof, and refused to alter his beliefs when presented with challenges which he could not account for.
3402865
This is true: eliminate adverbs, avoid speech tags, avoid purple prose, show don't tell.
'Show, don't tell" is sometimes attributed to Aristotle, because he said drama should depict with action rather than narration. But that's a little silly; that was just a definition of drama.
However, "show, don't tell" does characterize the Iliad very well. (Julian Jaynes claims that was because the ancient Greeks weren't conscious, but he's a nutter.)
I choose to believe that there are no rules for writing, and run roughshod over grammatical decency.
3404778 Both are in fact referencing a real thing people possibly believed, and certainly told stories about.
Incidentally, I continue to use this blog post as an awesome resource for people.