The Place For My Writers Notes

Original posting 6 September 2008

Eight Rules of Writing?

I've forgotten exactly how I got on it, but I get e-mail odds and ends from Writer's Digest on a regular basis. The headline on one that came by recently intrigued me, so I went over to read it. Apparently someone summarized the eight key rules for writers at a recent conference. Here's the URL http://writersdigest.com/article/steve-berrys-8-rules-of-writing and there is a place there to sign up for your very own news, tips, and special offers. But let's take a look at these rules. Note that the numbered lines are from the webpage -- the commentary is me babbling. Feel free to disagree.

1. There are no rules. You can do anything you want as long as it works.

I think this may be the most important rule -- and the most important modifying phrase, "as long as it works." This is the engineering or pragmatic rule of thumb -- does it work? If it doesn't work, it really doesn't matter how pretty it is, how much time you spent on it, or anything else, it doesn't work. So make sure it works first.

2. Don't bore the reader. You can bore the reader in a sentence, in a paragraph, by misusing words, poorly choosing words, using the wrong length, etc.

MIT used to pay a writing consultant to come in and give a workshop for students and faculty. One of the first and last points that he reminded that group of was that business readers don't have to read your writing. Teachers and other students often read the whole thing, no matter how bad it is, because they have to. Regular readers just stop reading. So the first sentence, and every sentence, paragraph, scene, chapter break -- make it interesting. Make the reader want to keep reading.

3. Don't confuse the reader. Don't misuse point of view. Don't do too much at once.

Keep it simple. Sure, changing points of view, 39 plot lines woven into a complex braid, flashbacks and flashforwards and flashsideways all can be exciting and fun for the writer. But confused readers stop. You want the reader to enjoy it, which means they have to understand and follow it -- easily.

4. Don't get caught writing. Don't let you, the author, enter the story.

He would never come home again. Now how does the protagonist know the future like that? I always like the ones where someone walks into a city, and suddenly describes neighborhoods, history, the sewer system -- just from walking a few feet in. Amazing perception.

5. Shorter is always better. Write tight. It makes you use the best words in the right way.

Purple prose and gonzo writing fill up pages, but you probably don't want to overdo it. Papa Hemingway and The Little Book may be a bit sparse, but do try to keep it tight. You don't have to write haiku, but at least consider the lessons of poetry and keep the words close. And remember Twain's advice about the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.

6. Don't lie to the reader. It's okay to mislead, but don't lie. If you say the character's motivation is A and it turns out to be B (and you haven't foreshadowed it at all), the reader will feel cheated.

I think writers get into this because they're looking for that unexpected twist, and it feels easier to just lie to the reader, use that unreliable narrator and drag the reader into the morass of misunderstanding. But that's not the point! You want to play the mystery game, where all the clues are right out there in front of the reader, but until the great sleuth explains how it all fits together, no one realizes why the sleeping dog is important. Play fair with the reader -- don't lie to them.

7. Don't annoy the reader. Don't use names that are hard to pronounce or write choppy sentences throughout the entire book. It keeps people from getting close to your characters.

An upset reader? That's a confused reader taken one step further, isn't it? Names that are hard to pronounce are hard to remember. Several names that are very close to each other is also puzzle for the reader -- was this Amos the senior, Amos the younger, Amos the cousin -- oh, who cares! If all of the sentences are the same length, there's a certain singsong effect that builds up.

8. You must tell a good story. Bad writing can be forgiven with a good story. A bad story with the most beautiful writing cannot.

This is an interesting one because it is often to justify not doing one's best with grammar, spelling, and the other tedious details of the craft of writing. And to some extent, it may be true that editors and publishers will work with the writer who has a really good story to fix up the little stuff. But if the story just isn't there, then the best grammatical construction, proofreading, and other craftsmanship won't sell the missing story. So make it a story that you would like to read, that really makes readers interested and excited, and do the best you can with the nails and painting around the edges, but don't sweat it trying to get the last comma in or out. The easier it is to read, the more likely that the editor will see your great story without getting stuck on the grammar, spelling, and interesting font choices you've made in presenting it -- but you do need a great story under the wrappers.

Sorry, hopefully my little comments haven't hidden the eight rules. It's an interesting selection. And I think it's a good place to start, especially with that first reminder -- make sure it works.

So what do you think? Are there any of these that don't quite seem right for you? How would you illustrate or phrase each of these? Are there any other rules that really belong in the mix? What are they and why do they belong in your list?

Something to think about as we charge into a fall full of writing.

[Little Book? Look for the Elements of Style by Strunk and White. Excellent book. Looks like the original 1918 version is available online, while the 1950s versions with White cost something? Most used book stores have it cheap.]

Original posting: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 01:30:03 JST

[lots of new critters in the pond (HI!), but I still want to kick this around... forgive me for not quoting everyone, but I thought I'd just summarize and go bravely where I hadn't rambled before...]

Does the Reader know the Writer?

I think that's sort of the topic we're wandering around.

Okay, let me reiterate what I think was the original question - how important is knowledge of the writer's situation to judging the work? (e.g. does the fact that the anne frank of bosnia is writing in bosnia, and is 13 or something, alter the value of the work?)

randy and stuart have gone wandering a bit, bringing up the questions of shared background, internal meanings vs external words, and so forth.

Tsirbas Christos also added some interesting comments on the notion of categorizing writers by their nationality (or other group membership - I'd never really thought about it, but that "area authors" corner in some bookstores really is a rather nasty ghetto to be stuck in, isn't it?)

[Hi, Tsirbas! thanks for joining in...]

good stuff, one and all...

Let me drop a few more pebbles in the rather muddy waters we're treading about the writer, the words, and the reader.

Interesting - especially if I stop and think about something like Shakespeare's work, or Gawain and the Green Knight, where I need commentary just to have a chance of figuring out some of the social and historic references. Take a gander at the original 1000 nights and a night, without reading the footnotes? very difficult.

I suppose the negative case of Japanese writings where you don't even understand the language doesn't clarify much...

Consider, though, reading something like the original Robinson Crusoe or Swiss Family Robinson (not the kid's versions - the old monsters). Stylistic barbarisms, with an overlay of socially accepted trash (the White Man's Burden, don't you know!).

Or take Tarzan, Lord Greystoke - in the original, with the whole wonderful mixture of "British supremacy" with "the natural man." It's enough to make almost any modern reader feel uncomfortable...

Heck, pull the author and cover off one of the "golden age" space operas (E.E. Smith) and try to convince a modern reader to read it.

It does seem as though the effect (and affect) of a piece of writing in part depends on how similar the background is. At the same time, I think the detailed knowledge of the author's personal history, while sometimes adding some depth or understanding to a piece, really should not be required to understand and enjoy the piece.

Let me switch fields for a sec - Picasso's Guernica (sp?). Disturbing, almost tortured piece of art. I didn't care for it, then someone told me there was a war there... and suddenly the piece started making sense. Now, that little piece of information helped me connect the pattern of thoughts and make a whole out of it.

An interesting question for some kind of theoretician might be what information needs to be added to "set the stage" for understanding a writer's work. Actually, it may not be so theoretical - when you bring a book (or short story, etc.) from America to Japan, for example, there are some severe limits on the "common background" you can expect.

It seems as if there is a kind of continuum here, from the writer and reader having largely common background and knowledge (which allows them to communicate with the least words and should tend to limit misunderstandings) to cases where writer and reader share very little. It might be interesting to compare different readers - could we say that the writer who manages to convey roughly the same message to a statistically larger percentage of the readers is more "effective"? What then becomes of a Bach (or maybe a James Joyce?) whose messages are so bloody complex that most readers don't follow it even when it is simplified and laid out in great detail? (I was thinking of Johann Sebastian, incidentally - the musician).

What about a Marshall McLuhan? I have one of his early books - Mass Communication Theory? something like that. and found it absolutely inspiring, although I could only read about one paragraph a day! DENSE! Then he became popular, and started doing 15 minute books with practically no content - comic books for adults? To me, his later work is eminently discardable, even though it reached a much larger audience.

Hum - complex questions, which probably have complex answers.

BTW - I've seen a write up of someone who took several pieces by well-known authors, polished the names off, then tried submitting them under an unknown name. Rather amusing collection of rejections, editorial slams, and so forth...

Would it make any sense to say that while the names, situation, and so forth are likely to have a high level of influence in our reading of "current" material, these factors are likely to change over time, resulting in rather different evaluation of the writing? E.g., while a piece from the 60's calling for popular support of the Vietnam war might have been a winner at the time, dragging it out now is likely to be a problem.

you know, there is something in here that reminds me of the rather well-known comedy bit, where the young man is excited over the voice on the phone... and then we learn that this exciting voice belongs to a well-worn, rather overstuffed mother of whiny little brats...

does it really matter what the writer is like, or where, or when? if the words ring, the images live, I can't see it being important whether Hemingway was homosexual, impotent, or even a lush. I think I agree with Randy - once the writer "lets go" of the words, the whole business turns into one between the reader(s) and those words. Admittedly, the writer should do the best they can to form and mold those words for the audience they expect - but if the readers find pornographic imagery underlying it that the writer never thought of, that is just as accurate as the writer's vision...

(further ramblings as soon as I find the other file I started on the same topic. sometimes the mental filer misfires. :-)

Eight Rules of Writing?

I've forgotten exactly how I got on it, but I get e-mail odds and ends from Writer's Digest on a regular basis. The headline on one that came by recently intrigued me, so I went over to read it. Apparently someone summarized the eight key rules for writers at a recent conference. Here's the URL http://writersdigest.com/article/steve-berrys-8-rules-of-writing and there is a place there to sign up for your very own news, tips, and special offers. But let's take a look at these rules. Note that the numbered lines are from the webpage -- the commentary is me babbling. Feel free to disagree.

1. There are no rules. You can do anything you want as long as it works.

I think this may be the most important rule -- and the most important modifying phrase, "as long as it works." This is the engineering or pragmatic rule of thumb -- does it work? If it doesn't work, it really doesn't matter how pretty it is, how much time you spent on it, or anything else, it doesn't work. So make sure it works first.

2. Don't bore the reader. You can bore the reader in a sentence, in a paragraph, by misusing words, poorly choosing words, using the wrong length, etc.

MIT used to pay a writing consultant to come in and give a workshop for students and faculty. One of the first and last points that he reminded that group of was that business readers don't have to read your writing. Teachers and other students often read the whole thing, no matter how bad it is, because they have to. Regular readers just stop reading. So the first sentence, and every sentence, paragraph, scene, chapter break -- make it interesting. Make the reader want to keep reading.

3. Don't confuse the reader. Don't misuse point of view. Don't do too much at once.

Keep it simple. Sure, changing points of view, 39 plot lines woven into a complex braid, flashbacks and flashforwards and flashsideways all can be exciting and fun for the writer. But confused readers stop. You want the reader to enjoy it, which means they have to understand and follow it -- easily.

4. Don't get caught writing. Don't let you, the author, enter the story.

He would never come home again. Now how does the protagonist know the future like that? I always like the ones where someone walks into a city, and suddenly describes neighborhoods, history, the sewer system -- just from walking a few feet in. Amazing perception.

5. Shorter is always better. Write tight. It makes you use the best words in the right way.

Purple prose and gonzo writing fill up pages, but you probably don't want to overdo it. Papa Hemingway and The Little Book may be a bit sparse, but do try to keep it tight. You don't have to write haiku, but at least consider the lessons of poetry and keep the words close. And remember Twain's advice about the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.

6. Don't lie to the reader. It's okay to mislead, but don't lie. If you say the characters motivation is A and it turns out to be B (and you haven't foreshadowed it at all), the reader will feel cheated.

I think writers get into this because they're looking for that unexpected twist, and it feels easier to just lie to the reader, use that unreliable narrator and drag the reader into the morass of misunderstanding. But that's not the point! You want to play the mystery game, where all the clues are right out there in front of the reader, but until the great sleuth explains how it all fits together, no one realizes why the sleeping dog is important. Play fair with the reader -- don't lie to them.

7. Don't annoy the reader. Don't use names that are hard to pronounce or write choppy sentences throughout the entire book. It keeps people from getting close to your characters.

An upset reader? That's a confused reader taken one step further, isn't it? Names that are hard to pronounce are hard to remember. Several names that are very close to each other is also a puzzle for the reader -- was this Amos the senior, Amos the younger, Amos the cousin -- oh, who cares! If all of the sentences are the same length, there's a certain singsong effect that builds up.

8. You must tell a good story. Bad writing can be forgiven with a good story. A bad story with the most beautiful writing cannot.

This is an interesting one because it is often to justify not doing one's best with grammar, spelling, and the other tedious details of the craft of writing. And to some extent, it may be true that editors and publishers will work with the writer who has a really good story to fix up the little stuff. But if the story just isn't there, then the best grammatical construction, proofreading, and other craftsmanship won't sell the missing story. So make it a story that you would like to read, that really makes readers interested and excited, and do the best you can with the nails and painting around the edges, but don't sweat it trying to get the last comma in or out. The easier it is to read, the more likely that the editor will see your great story without getting stuck on the grammar, spelling, and interesting font choices you've made in presenting it -- but you do need a great story under the wrappers.

Sorry, hopefully my little comments haven't hidden the eight rules. It's an interesting selection. And I think it's a good place to start, especially with that first reminder -- make sure it works.

So what do you think? Are there any of these that don't quite seem right for you? How would you illustrate or phrase each of these? Are there any other rules that really belong in the mix? What are they and why do they belong in your list?

Something to think about as we charge into a fall full of writing.
tink

[Little Book? Look for the Elements of Style by Strunk and White. Excellent book. Looks like the original 1918 version is available online, while the 1950s versions with White cost something? Most used book stores have it cheap.]