StoryMash Creative Storytelling Forum

This is sort of random, but one thing that's always bugged me is "writing rules." Namely, it bugs me when some "expert" declares that writers can't use a certain tool or can't do a specific thing. For instance, there is a rule that sentences should never start with a conjunction (but, and, or, etc), but you can see this used all the time in good writing.

I think what happens is this: A good writer uses a specific method. Hundreds of aspiring writers or people who think writing is a breeze and they can make millions by churning out some formulaic cheesy half-baked crap (obviously they don't know the publishing industry... oh, wait. Twilight. I guess they do). (Twihards please don't shoot me!)

Back on track, all these people use the method POORLY. So then some expert in the writing community declares that this method is against the rules of good writing, and good writers who want to use the method feel like they can't use it without other writers or worse, editors, telling them they shouldn't be using it.

But there's always a right way and a wrong way to use methods. Just because some people are using it wrong doesn't mean a good writer can't use it right. In the above example, I'm guessing that many untrained writers came up with long, run-on sentences, felt stuck, and just started randomly using periods to break up the sentences - without adjusting the wording to create proper sentences. That would create really bad sentences with conjunctions at the beginning. But any good writer knows that a sentence can start with a conjunction for the purpose of rhythm, flow, and emphasis. (See what I did just there? Yeah.)

One that I've heard multiple times recently, one that REALLY bugs me, is "Never use adverbs." Adverbs apparently are "cheater tools, requiring no creativity." (Not an exact quote, but summarized from the various people I've heard touting this rule.)

Just like the other, there's a right way and a wrong way to use adverbs:

She walked seductively toward him.

Her hips swayed back and forth in a slow, steady rhythm, highlighting the meaningful look in her eyes as she walked toward him.

Obviously, in this example, the non-adverbed sentence is superior. It shows rather than tells. But check out this follow-up:

He let his gaze linger on her a moment longer before leaning toward the bartender and quietly ordering two martinis.

Here the adverb is perfectly acceptable (in my opinion). I could draw out the sentence longer to describe exactly how he's lowering his tone, but that's not an important point to emphasize. I want the focus of the scene to remain on the smoldering woman making her way toward him, so I'm deliberately shortening the rhythm of his sentences while drawing out hers, keeping her action central to the writing. If I drew out his action with a more thorough, adverb-free description, the focus would shift to him and what he's doing. The way it's written now shows what he's doing, but keeps the focus on the woman: we see him ordering two drinks and know that he's preparing for her arrival at his side.

So to me, it's not right to globally declare adverbs off-limits. As long as they're used deliberately instead of lazily, I say they're fair game.

Anyone else know any "rules" that they feel shouldn't be rules?

Oh, I love you for starting this. One of my favorite pastimes is breaking grammar rules. Writing is about so many different things for so many people that pinning it down to a grammar shaped box just limits both readers' and writers' possibilities. To me, the actual *rhythm* of what I'm reading/writing is important to me. Sometimes the sound or length of particular rules or words don't fit. They break rhythm. I will break every single grammar rule ever written to preserve fluidity.

My addition to "writing rules" is words. Specifically, nonexistent words. I HATE when grammar police point fingers at offending letter arrangements and say "That's not a word."

If whatever the author was attempting to convey, is conveyed, then the point of his attempt has been made. English is already a mashed up salad of vegetables from varying countries/eras. Does it truly matter if I add an herb to the dressing?

Thousands of words are added to various dictionaries each year. You can't tell me mine are less legit because I don't have an overstuffed executive panel handy to vote it into an official document before I use it. The entire point of communication is to communicate. If that is done effectively, then let it be. And if it bothers you that much, go read a textbook :)

Bless you, for those who write fantasy it would be near impossible to not make up a word every now and then

Great topic. I agree that writing rules should not be taken as gospel, but I still think that they are quite important, especially for writers who are just learning their way. For a beginner, that kind of restriction is necessary. One of most common mistakes you find in the works of beginners is that their work is suffocating under the weight of its own unnecessary description. Tell them not to use adverbs, and suddenly you could have half that extra weight gone, and maybe a piece that's improved tenfold because of it. That same writer may one day progress to the point where they can use adverbs in the appropriate place at the appropriate time and with great success.

You can't break the rules correctly unless you know them first. We've all probably at some point seen a poem by EE Cummings. And at some point we've probably also seen a poem by a very enthusiastic amateur who attempts the same thing and really does not pull it off. Why doesn't it work? Because they can't identify the change in register from line to line that gives the poem sense and emotion, or to recognize how the rhythm is used to stress some words over others and holds the words into a complete poem, and not just words and phrases scrabbled across a page.

How do you know when you've reached the point where you can break the rules successfully? I don't have a clue. Trial and error is probably the only effective barometer. Read like crazy, learn from better writers-- then be really brave one day, take the plunge and hope like hell you get it right. And if you don't, discuss it with other writers, learn why it didn't, and use that information for the next time.

Excellent point, Ace.

Ace, you know when you can break the rules correctly when Aggeloi, the grammer nazi, doesn't comment on it! Duh. lol

My favorite rule that I think should not exsist would most definatley be, sentence fragments! I'd like to think that at this point I am breaking the rule correctly. I write fast. I write with action. (most fo the time anyway) Longer sentences limit the pace at which they are read, therefore slowing the story line. And (ohh starting a sentence with a conjunction....) that's really all there is to it. Sentence fragments create or stall the pace of a story.

Another tiny pet peeve of mine would be the incorrect usage of the ellipsis (the ...) Rull of thumb to remember, 3 dots mean the sentece continues, so make sure the words follow and not another, different, sentence. 4 dots is the ending. Think of the fourth dot as a period. It drives me crazy to see ........ blah blah..........blah. Drawing out the dots just bugs people, it doesn't make one pause longer folks! ;)

Ooo, thanks dkk. I sure didn't know the rule about ellipses. I have to try and remember that.

Humorously enough, I didn't know the 3 vs. 4 dot ellipses rule, either (DID know about not doing long chains, tho!). Guess I need to get back to grammar nazi school...

Holy hell, mark that one in the books folks! ;oP On a side note, I'm full of useLESS information, it's the useFUL stuff that escapes me!

I know... I think I see a rift in the space/time continuum opening up...

My thing is... you should know the rules before you break them.

Personally, I don't know that much grammar. If I stumbled over a dangling participle in a dark alley somewhere, I would turn and run.

But I view this as a weakness of mine, rather than taking pride in it. I intend to rectify this one day. I also intend to become a millionaire. Build a time machine. And start a religion that will usher in an age of world peace and heaven on earth for a thousand years...

... and then the next thousand years will be a living nightmare, darker and more Hellish than anything yet imagined.

And then after that... geez, I don't know. First things first though. I need to learn that grammar.

So my previous comment just restated what everyone else pretty much said. That's a... tautology, right? My bad.

Also. What are your philosophies on exposition. I was studying "how to write" books all day. They all agree- show the reader things. Do not tell them.

Then I actually pick up some books by my favorite authors- koontz, king, and some fantasy jocks you probably never heard of- and all they do is use exposition.

Something like this-

Tom woke up at the crack of dawn. He showered, dressed quickly, downed a hot pocket for breakfast, and was out the door before seven.
Tom had always been timely. Born into a family of prestigious chrononauts, time had not been merely an abstract concept, as it was for others. But a living, breathing, entity. They called it the monster. You had to understand the monster. You had to work with the monster. But most of all, you simply had to be on time.
Tom arrived at the office five minutes early. Seven forty five.

---
So, that's how all these guys write. Quick bursts of description, dialogue, and action. And then chunks of exposition that zoom all over the place, seeming to break every rule.

So how do I know when to use exposition? Has anyone noticed this or thought it out?

I think it all depends on what you want to write, what genre, what your particular style is, where you are in a story, your characters, POV, tense, etc. There are times when I want exposition. In all honesty, it is the easiest way to get information across to the reader. And then there are times, most times, I tend to avoid it because it is also the easiest way to bore a reader. For the most part, I try to weave the details and description into the action, dialogue, and character voice. That's what the books mean by show vs tell. It isn't necessarily how much description there is vs how much action and how much narration. Rather, showing is tying in all the aspects of writing into one fluid text - to paint the scene without strictly narrating it or describing it or having so much action that the character voice and the scene are lost.

Everyone has their own style and their own way weaving a story together. Some block it, chunk it, and break it down. Some weave words, sentences, ideas, philosophies, descriptions, actions, dialogue, conflict, and characterization all at once. And some do both. It is about balance. If you feel yourself getting bored writing a block of exposition, then you know your readers are going to get bored reading it. So break it up with some action. Or description. Or dialogue. Or all three. The options are endless. One of the great things about being a writer is we have the ability to experiment and find out what works best for us in any given situation.

=)

Excellent post. I completely agree with you. Writing is an art just like painting, composing, sculpturing and such. There can't be strict lines which limits the writer's creativity. If you look at 'Iliad' or 'Odyssey' you will see dozens of grammatical anormalies. But they add an artistic feeling and makes the story more appealing in my opinion.

Oow, I missed this post.
My opinion is that you have to know the rules, and when you break them, it is for a specific effect.

Do you write like you talk, or do you talk like you write?
Every writer is an artist, trying to convey the picture that they want you to see, using the pen to write the book.
Do you paint what you see, or do you see what you paint.
Every artist is a writer, trying to convey the book that they want you to read, using the brush to paint the picture.
In a proverbial nut shell, what do you, the writer, want us, the reader, to see when we read what you have written with the pen.
Just as the artist paints a different picture each time with different color shades, the writer writes a different book, poem, and etc, each time using a different, or off the wall and charts, style of their own. Do I make any sense at all?

I knew that I forgot to put the ? at the end of paint. Oh well, the paint was wet.