Blogger: Rachelle Gardner
If you’ve been studying the craft of writing for long, you’ve heard all the “rules.” You know that you’re supposed to show not tell, use active not passive verbs, eschew adverbs, maintain consistent POVs, avoid repetition, and all the rest.
But it’s easy to get too caught up in the rules and get frustrated at trying so hard to follow them that you find your creativity stunted. In addition, some writers are actively resentful about the rules, feeling like the Writing Establishment is trying to keep everyone in a little box and not allow writers’ artistic visions to shine through. I want to share a few thoughts about writing rules.
1. They’re not meant to be slavishly followed.
They’re meant to be thoughtfully considered and used when appropriate.
2. The time to apply “writing rules” is usually not in your first draft.
That’s when creativity reigns. Only think about the rules in your revision process. Writing is more a creative, right-brain process. Editing and applying rules is more a left-brain process. Try not to get your brain too confused by doing both at once.
3. Writing is not ABOUT the rules.
The rules are just TOOLS to help you write effectively. The goal in writing is to engage your reader, draw them in, make them want to keep turning the pages, whether you’re telling them a story or giving them information. So writing rules are simply the means of helping you do that.
The only time “rules” ever come into play is when you or your editor recognizes that something’s not working. Maybe the book is getting boring, the characters don’t feel believable, the arguments in your nonfiction work are falling flat, the reader isn’t engaged. It’s pretty easy to identify what’s wrong. However, figuring out how to fix it—that’s where the rules come in. Rules are a means of identifying how to fix a problem so that the reader remains engaged.
The only reason to maintain consistent and strong POVs is to keep your reader deeply involved with your characters. The reason to show not tell is to keep your reader’s imagination active, keep your story alive and visual in their mind. Each of the rules serves a purpose – it’s a tool to help you create a written work that others want to read.
So whenever you get frustrated by the rules, or can’t figure out why or if you should follow a rule or break it, go back to the reasons behind the rules and ask yourself:
Does following this rule strengthen my work?
Can adhering to a rule make my manuscript more readable and enjoyable?
Do I know enough about the reasons for the rules to effectively break them?
By going back to the purpose of writing rules, you can save yourself frustration, and focus instead on the goal: powerful and engaging writing that people want to read.
What’s your opinion of “writing rules”? Do you find them challenging, helpful, frustrating? How do you decide when to break them?
Tweetables
“Writing rules aren’t meant to be slavishly followed.” Thoughts on rules from @RachelleGardner. Click to Tweet.
The time to apply “writing rules” is usually not in your first draft. Click to Tweet.
The “writing rules” are just TOOLS. Click to Tweet.
Dealing with a Bounty of Publishing Riches
I think I follow the rules of writing more than most published authors do. However, there are three common rules where the “experts” have differing opinions.
1) Don’t end a sentence with a preposition.
2) Don’t start a sentence with a conjunction.
3) Don’t split your infinities.
In all three, I’ve sided with those who consider these rules as outdated, so I regularly break all three. Although I’m happy for my freedom in these areas, I wonder if some people think less of my work because of it.
And the trouble with splitting infinities, of course, is that afterwards, you just have two infinities instead of one. 🙂
Good, common sense advice, Rachelle.
With the death of Elmore Leonard, a writing legend, his so-called “ten rules of writing” have surfaced again. I’m indebted to source-of-all-knowledge James Scott Bell, who says that Leonard had his tongue in his cheek to some extent when he mentioned those in an interview.
Nevertheless, one stands out–leave out the parts that people skip.
Exactly, Richard. I always loved Leonard’s clear, simple rules.
That is probably my favorite of his, too. However, some of his others I tend to disagree with.
I find ‘only using said to carry dialogue’ feels redundant (that is assuming a tag is necessary). Also, the use of regional dialect is vital if the setting/era of history is to be a significant factor. Usage depends completely on what sort of story you are writing.
Leonard also cited a couple of authors who could break the rules (Tom Wolfe and exclamation points) as often as they liked. The point being they are such great writers that they make their own rules.
I agree that rules are meant to be a tool but I think you need to know how to follow rules before you can be blase about not following them.
Oh, this is so true! I actually learned this from my editor, who is every shade of brilliant. I remember thinking, as we worked on content edits for my debut novel, “But Donald Maass says…” I think Shannon wanted to wring my neck and say, “Forget about Donald Maass, would you?” Lol.
I’m with Shannon. Well, not on the wringing your neck part…LOL!
I’m with you on not letting the rules dictate my first draft of a story. But certain things I do even in a first draft, like making sure I’m not head hopping in a scene. For the rest, I just write, knowing I can go back and fix later.
I tend to be a rule follower in general, but I’m sure there are certain writing rules I’ve broken, knowingly or not. I agree that, for the most part, when they are followed, they can make for a better reading experience for readers.
I’m curious as to other thoughts on something this brought to mine for me. I know you must balance telling and showing while writing. I think the attitude towards this has shifted. It seems the younger the literary people are I work with, they more they want a book to be film like and only showing…no telling at all. I believe this is influenced by people seeing film as much as they read today. Any comments?
Depends on what era of film the writers are trying to emulate. Of course, it could be that it isn’t that the writers are influenced by film, but trying to create a product which can compete in the marketplace with other entertainment choices, and it is their audience which is seeking that sort of writing.
This is my opinion on showing and telling. Some things are just better told. I don’t need to go into great detail to show someone making coffee to start their day. It’s okay to tell it because people already understand the process. Showing is most effective when a writer wants to convey the emotion a POV character is feeling, working through. Rather than saying the character is angry, show it through actions, verbs used, the character’s perceptions as she or he walks through the scene. I think if we try to show everything, it can become tedious for the reader. I’ll be curious to see how others respond.
I actually love the rules. I feel they make my writing better
I think there are different levels of rules. I use a narrative structure to help me decide scenes, the Hero’s Journey. I use either a scene or sequel structure to set the flow of my discourse — it will open with an objective, create tension, and end in failure or it will react, fight through dilemma, and end in a decision. Mostly. Another rule is not to follow the rules if the pen wants to wander. I do pay attention to voice and POV. I try for some consistency, if I find the rhythm I like. But exploring other options is always open.
Thank you for these words Rachelle. As a new author trying to build my craft, I want to learn to be the best, but I have found some of the advice stifling. There seems to be a push back on the rules lately. Not to throw them out, but to allow freedom and using the rules at the proper times. This was welcome advice.
Agreed. I like the old saying, “You have to know the rules before you break them.” It’s good to have a starting point before you wander too far away from the basics of writing.
It also makes sense that you would use the rules to fix issues that are arising – great way to look at them.
I have found that the rules have paralyzed me at times. So I like the advice you give about not letting them rule your first draft and rather go with creativity.
I do enjoy the rules, most of the time, and today you’ve helped me figure out why, Rachelle. They strengthen my writing.
Thank you for another super post, Rachelle! I’ve been known to break the rules, but I also appreciate the “net” they form to catch me when I step off the high wire. (I’m such a klutz.) So the rules don’t irritate me nearly as much as those people who point and say, “That writer doesn’t know what she’s doing. She’s breaking all The Rules!”
One of the wonderful rules about The Rules is that when you know them well enough, you’ve earned the right to experiment with judicial breakage. On occasion that experimentation results in a very sweet slice of creativity that makes for an incredible read.
Good reminder not to allow “the rules” to disable the creative flow on the first go-around! And fortunately, writing is a forgiving art…one can re-do clean-up, and continue working.
Some writers advocate writing the entire manuscript and then fine-tuning. Others I’ve heard, say to edit the last pages written~checking “the rules”~ before proceeding. Guess it’s a matter of personal preference.
“If the audience asks why we suck, just tell them we’re Punk.”
I find both breaking the rules for the sake of doing so in the name of creative liberty, and the adhering of rules for trying to artificially create cogent logic for ones’ work to both be some of the faults of much of the books out there today.
To which one has to wonder, how much of it is the writer deciding to write like that, and how much is merely what publishers and agents are accepting?
Great thoughts about writing rules. I wrote my first novel this past winter/spring, and during revision 2 I took my list of “beginner mistakes” that I had culled from reading numerous writing articles, and methodically went through my manuscript and cleaned it up. The one glaring rule that confused me the most “was” the use of the passive verb “was.” Don’t use it, every article said, avoid it at all costs, it’s a sign of weak writing. Well, when I read famous literary works, successful commercial novels, sampling dozens of popular books with Amazon’s “Look Inside” feature I “was” amazed to find how oft used it is, even in the first two or three paragraphs of the story. In some cases the word “was” appears three times or more in one sentence!
Anyway, thanks for the perspective.
Cheers,
Ty
I’m amazed at how often the word “had” is used. I try to eliminate this as much as possible in the first pages because I want to introduce the reader to an event in motion, not something that already happened.
Wow, this post is one I could make a ‘rule’. 🙂 Thank you, Rachelle, for bringing some much needed clarity–and balance–to the whole topic of writing rules. Especially appreciate your reminder to not fuss with them so much in the first draft, something I find myself doing from time to time, which only adds frustration and gets in the way of the creative flow.
For my sequel to The Parchman Preacher, I’m using James Scott Bell’s Knockout Novel tool. It pokes and prods me with questions, stretching me to dig deeper via his “prompts.” It’s like he’s there with me. I hope you don’t mind my writing about someone’s writing tools.
I am such a rule follower. I don’t enter through the exit or leave a store through the entrance. I stop and count to three at stop signs, even if there is no traffic.
For years, I never started a sentence with “and,” “but,” or “because,” and sentences never ended with “to.” I’ve learned to relax a bit more when I write, but it’s still hard for me to stifle my need to follow the rules during my first draft. I think that’s why I struggle so much with NaNoWriMo.
Right on, Rachelle. It’s important to understand the reason for the rules in order to use them effectively. I started one manuscript in mostly passive voice. It did well in contests because that was exactly the feel that was necessary for the scene. The main character needed to go through the motions of the activity as if it were being done to her rather than her making the decision herself. It worked best that way. Having said that I firmly believe “the rules” are VERY helpful tools in helping the reader engage in the story so should not be ignored totally.
It’s okay to break the rules. Just be sure and sweep up the pieces.
I consider the rules to be helpful guidelines that almost always improve my writing. The only time I’ve been genuinely unhappy with them was when someone at a conference insisted on slavishly applying them to a particular work of mine. The result no longer clearly expressed what I wanted. Being a newbie at the time, I became discouraged with that piece of writing.
As Hector Barbossa puts it (in Parrots of the Caribbean):
“… and third, the Code is more what you’d call Guidelines than actual Rules…”
One of the risks of throwing the rules to the roadside is what I call “quantum leap humor.” That is, I consciously break the rules and put two unrelated things together, creating a mixed metaphor. I find it uproariously funny, but my reader is left scratching her head, and going, “Huh?”
I’m still working on evicting the inner critic from the juicy-working-on-the-first-draft phase of writing. I need to get creative first,and leave the clean-up editing till later.
I’ve just read two books in a row by the same author, a prominent writer on military history. He’s quite good (and shall remain nameless) but he does violate some rules – such as a dancing POV.
In one scene, describing the suicide of a disgraced naval officer in WW2, he moves choppily from the officer’s viewpoint in real time, to a suicide note, to the viewpoint of the mess attendants who found his body. I had to read it three times before I fully understood what he was trying to say. That may be appropriate in creating a ‘schizoid’ mood in literary fiction, but in a book that’s intended to become a classic work of military history, no.
The other violation is in using ‘pet phrases’; this becomes glaring when you read two books in a row. It’s sure taught me never to fall in love with a particular way of saying something.
I teach my writing students that following the rules is not the place to start – they are often thoroughly confused and blocked when they join one of my classes. The place to start is with a good idea, a few interesting characters, and a rudimentary idea of what you want to say, then get busy and get words on the page. We’ll worry about the rules in revision and edit.
However, I also teach them the rules and try to get them to understand them one by one. The more you use them, they more natural they become.
Thanks Rachelle.