# Are writing 'rules' becoming obsolete?



## OurJud (Jun 20, 2013)

This might seems like an odd place to be asking such a question, but am I alone suspecting we're rapidly moving towards a 'no rules' approach to fiction writing?

I suspect many experts will tell you it's always been this way, before running off a list of classic authors from the past who consistently 'broke the rules'. That said, those rules had to be there in the first place, in order for them to be broken, making the whole argument self-contradictory.

At the moment I'm reading a sci-fi novel called _alt.human_. I'm loving it, but it doesn't exactly follow convention. It has multiple characters, breaking the 'one is not enough, more than four is too many' rule, but also switches from a first-person narrative (protagonist), to a third-person (secondary characters), sometimes on the same page, with the author telling us of their past and activities (in real time) away from the main character. I always thought the rule was that in a first-person narrative, we could only be privy to the things the protagonist themselves saw. In other words, if they don't witness something or know something about another character, how can we?

Thoughts?


----------



## Jeko (Jun 20, 2013)

Only with the presence of rules do we know that we are breaking rules; they are not becoming obsolete. Breaking the rules is the greatest way, IMO, of acknowledging that you understand them.



> I always thought the rule was that in a first-person narrative, we could only be privy to the things the protagonist themselves saw.



That is not a rule.


----------



## movieman (Jun 20, 2013)

OurJud said:


> I always thought the rule was that in a first-person narrative, we could only be privy to the things the protagonist themselves saw. In other words, if they don't witness something or know something about another character, how can we?



It was only a rule in order to get the book past an agent to a publisher who wanted something just like the last best-seller only different.

The Illuminati trilogy, for example, would sometimes jump between three different PoVs across billions of years in a single sentence. They sold pretty well.

But, yes, I agree: the rise of viable self-publishing means you can ignore all the 'rules' and see what readers think. Odds are that ignoring the rules will mean the book won't sell well, but if you're good it could make the book stand out against the competition.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 20, 2013)

Honestly, the idea of 'rules' in any art is always pretty silly. There are no rules. There are merely conventions. The acid test is always whether it works.

I break rules all the time. Usually grammatical ones. I rarely use speech marks. I never use exclamation marks (even when exclaiming something). I screw around with spellings and often make up my own words. There are certain things I do not do, but it isnt because of rules its because of my preferences. 

Some conventions are there for a reason. The reason first person narrative normally follows what a character is privy to is not because its a rule but because it simply makes sense. If your character cant see it but still knows about it, that is confusing and tends to make your narrative difficult to believe. But find a way to ultimately explain how it is possible and its fine. Again, its about what works, what people will believe. It's like life - there are no rules to say you can't claim to be able to fly, but there are natural circumstances that make it difficult for others to believe. However, if you can find a way to 'break the rules' and make people believe you can fly, then you can do it.


----------



## philistine (Jun 20, 2013)

My grandfather was a carpenter. After he finished his apprenticeship, a long eight years on what was even then a pittance of a wage- he was out on his own, freelance, doing things the way he had been taught. 

He'd frequently say, 'once you know the correct way of doing something, only then can you take shortcuts'.


----------



## Nickleby (Jun 20, 2013)

The "rules" limit how you can say things, and thus what you can say. A language is no more or less than what people agree it is. To describe what you perceive and feel, you sometimes have to modify the tools at hand. Some call it art.

Breaking the rules doesn't change the rules. For some people, it's cause to preserve them and enforce them more rigidly. Artists, after all, are by definition a minority.


----------



## OurJud (Jun 20, 2013)

Perhaps rules was the wrong word. What I actually meant was 'what the text books advise', but as movieman has already said, perhaps this advice is only meant for those who are aiming their sights on the best sellers market.



			
				luckyscars said:
			
		

> The reason first person narrative normally follows what a character is  privy to is not because its a rule but because it simply makes sense. If  your character cant see it but still knows about it, that is confusing  and tends to make your narrative difficult to believe.



I understand that, but in the book I used as an example, this isn't really what the author is doing. It's almost as though there are two voices; the protagonist's (recounting the story in his own words), and the author's, as the all-seeing eye who occasionally butts in and says, "OK, listen up. I'm now going to whisk you away somewhere else and describe what another character is getting up to."

There's no reasoning to this style, but it works and is never confusing. Although I can't help but wonder why he did this. I mean, if he knew he would be switching between characters so often, why not just write as the all-seeing eye throughout?


----------



## shadowwalker (Jun 20, 2013)

The only rules in writing pertain to grammar and spelling, and those are broken intentionally only by those writers who thoroughly understand them and when and why they can be broken. Most writers break them unintentionally through ignorance.

Other than that, there are no rules in writing. There is advice, sometimes given by people who know what works and sometimes given by those who only parrot what someone else says because it reinforces their bad habits. And of course, any advice can be ignored or applied, depending on the writer. There are things that simply don't work, or have been used so often that readers are tired of them ("The whole thing was just a dream!" for example.). The only real rule to writing overall (IMHO) is to make your readers want to continue reading. Break the wrong rules (or for the wrong reasons) and they stop; follow the wrong advice and they stop. So don't do what makes them stop and you know you did it right.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jun 20, 2013)

OurJud said:


> I understand that, but in the book I used as an example, this isn't really what the author is doing. It's almost as though there are two voices; the protagonist's (recounting the story in his own words), and the author's, as the all-seeing eye who occasionally butts in and says, "OK, listen up. I'm now going to whisk you away somewhere else and describe what another character is getting up to."
> 
> There's no reasoning to this style, but it works and is never confusing. Although I can't help but wonder why he did this. I mean, if he knew he would be switching between characters so often, why not just write as the all-seeing eye throughout?



I've read several books that use this technique, if I understand what you're saying correctly. One character is first person; everything else in the story is third person. It works well because there is a clear delineation between POVs. It also works well because the reader is given information the first person character doesn't have, and gets to see when that character is going off track and when they're being very astute - it actually makes the reader even more involved in the story.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 20, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> Break the wrong rules (or for the wrong  reasons) and they stop; follow the wrong advice and they stop. So don't  do what makes them stop and you know you did it right.



Exactly. Break all the "rules" or flaunt all the conventions you want – as long as people buy it and it doesn’t make you look like an idiot -- then go for it.


----------



## OurJud (Jun 20, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> I've read several books that use this technique, if I understand what you're saying correctly. One character is first person; everything else in the story is third person. It works well because there is a clear delineation between POVs. It also works well because the reader is given information the first person character doesn't have, and gets to see when that character is going off track and when they're being very astute - it actually makes the reader even more involved in the story.



Yes, you've understood me perfectly, but my question is why use the first-person at all when you know you'll need to switch between characters so often?


----------



## escorial (Jun 20, 2013)

Very interesting.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jun 20, 2013)

OurJud said:


> Yes, you've understood me perfectly, but my question is why use the first-person at all when you know you'll need to switch between characters so often?



Because, as I said, it can get the reader even more involved in the story. They know something the main character doesn't, and first person MC makes that knowledge gap more 'personal'.


----------



## OurJud (Jun 20, 2013)

Ah, I see. Sorry, I didn't get that first time round.


----------



## escorial (Jun 20, 2013)

I come from this like punk did to say classical music...for me the way we talk is the way we express ourselves,dialects,slang..the lot...if i can read a piece thats fine by me..grammar comes second.


----------



## philistine (Jun 20, 2013)

escorial said:


> I come from this like punk did to say classical music...for me the way we talk is the way we express ourselves,dialects,slang..the lot...if i can read a piece thats fine by me..*grammar comes second.*



#


----------



## JosephB (Jun 20, 2013)

Awesome mentoring. Keep up the good work!


----------



## philistine (Jun 20, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Awesome mentoring. Keep up the good work!



I'm a proponent of tough love. I've had good results so far.


----------



## Terry D (Jun 20, 2013)

In my inexpert opinion; if what you have to say is interesting enough, then you don't have to play around with how you say it. If I find myself noticing the story structure (on a first read) I consider it poorly written. Structural gamesmanship is author intrusion of the worst sort.


----------



## J Anfinson (Jun 20, 2013)

OurJud said:


> Yes, you've understood me perfectly, but my question is why use the first-person at all when you know you'll need to switch between characters so often?



I agree with Shadowwalker, but will add that IMO writing in first person can add a level of emotional connection to a character that third person often can't. Maybe some would disagree with that, but I somehow doubt certain novels I've read would have been the same if they'd been in third person.


----------



## The Jaded (Jun 21, 2013)

> The only rules in writing pertain to grammar and spelling, and those are  broken intentionally only by those writers who thoroughly understand  them and when and why they can be broken. Most writers break them  unintentionally through ignorance.



That's fairly close to where I am on this.

I believe that it's not that rules are obsolete. The "rules" are just as relevant as always, and especially in English. That's not exactly a high bar, of course. The language we use encourages violating any rule it's given in certain situations. In fact, these "rules" are proven time and again to be guidelines. Even the most basic rules - those of grammar - are not necessarily hard and fast.

The trick is, to reliably keep an audience while violating these guidelines, I've always noticed that you need to *consciously* violate them. You need to make it obvious that it's intentional, and work to make it not distracting, but valuable. That means you need to know them first, or at least know them well enough to get by. In the end there will always be rules for a language - without that framework it's not a language at all, it's gibberish. A really brilliant writer can tap into what's behind that framework, extend it to fit what is being written, technically violating all sorts of rules but making perfect sense to the audience.

And then of course there's the rest of us, who try for that sort of outcome time and time again, to no positive effect.

My philosophy is, if you prove to yourself that you can work within the "rule", then there's no reason not to experiment with working alongside it, or outside it entirely. Don't dismiss rules and guidelines, aim know them well enough to recognize when to violate them.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 21, 2013)

philistine said:


> Evidently.



That was kind of unnecessary.


----------



## Jeko (Jun 21, 2013)

> There's no reasoning to this style, but it works and is never confusing.



Isn't that an oxymoron? It sounds like the author perfectly intended the book to be written in that way, and hence had sound reasoning.



> grammar comes second.



Grammar can be sorted out through editing; ergo, I would advise you to read over your posts before and after you make them and edit them. Your communication will become clearer.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 21, 2013)

The Jaded said:


> The trick is, to reliably keep an audience while violating these guidelines, I've always noticed that you need to *consciously* violate them. You need to make it obvious that it's intentional, and work to make it not distracting, but valuable. That means you need to know them first, or at least know them well enough to get by. In the end there will always be rules for a language - without that framework it's not a language at all, it's gibberish. A really brilliant writer can tap into what's behind that framework, extend it to fit what is being written, technically violating all sorts of rules but making perfect sense to the audience.



I've heard all the variations of this, and it all sounds good in theory -- but people rarely provide examples from something they've read or from their own writing. What kind of violations are you talking about?



luckyscars said:


> I rarely use speech marks.



What's the thinking behind that?


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 21, 2013)

JosephB said:


> What's the thinking behind that?



I don't like them and find them to be unnecessary. I find speech, if done well, can be quite reliably distinguished from the narrative through context, therefore making speech marks unnecessary. And, as with all things in writing, I am a firm believer that what is not necessary should be got rid of.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 21, 2013)

I’ve heard that rational before -- I think it sounds better in theory than in practice. Of course, McCarthy employs the same technique – and while I more or less got used it -- I didn’t think the lack of speech marks made anything clearer  -- so I found it to be more of an annoyance than anything else. I wouldn’t go so far as some and say it’s affected or pretentious -- but I thought the dialog worked despite the lack of punctuation, and not better for the lack of it.


----------



## Sam (Jun 21, 2013)

I detest McCarthy's vehement refusal to use speech marks. It has a tendency to be confusing, and the last thing I want when I'm reading is to be confused by something so trivial as a speech mark. They are necessary. If they weren't, they'd have died out a long time ago. 

As for the notion that grammar comes second: Sure, you can write a novel with no grammar whatsoever. It might be a great novel. It might just be the best novel in the existence of the world. But if the grammar is so bad that the story ceases to be discernible, i.e. _Finnegans Wake_, you might as well be taking a leak into the wind.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jun 21, 2013)

JosephB said:


> but I thought the dialog worked despite the lack of punctuation, and not better for the lack of it.



I agree with this distinction. With so many stylistic decisions, writers tend to mistake something working_ in spite_ of those decisions with it working _because _of them.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 21, 2013)

JosephB said:


> I’ve heard that rational before -- I think it sounds better in theory than in practice. Of course, McCarthy employs the same technique – and while I more or less got used it -- I didn’t think the lack of speech marks made anything clearer  -- so I found it to be more of an annoyance than anything else. I wouldn’t go so far as some and say it’s affected or pretentious -- but I thought the dialog worked despite the lack of punctuation, and not better for the lack of it.



Well, I never claimed it worked better. I just don't think speech marks are important. I'm coming at that from a readers perspective, not a writers. Then as a writer I don't believe in including anything I don't find to be important merely as a matter of principle. Whether it be needless description, swifties, punctuation - any of it. 

It isn't that I am anti-punctuation or anything. I like some of it. Commas have their place and so do question marks. I might occasionally slip in a colon (but never so far found any reason for semi-colons). I prefer to use a dash instead of ... to indicate an interruption. 

There's an old quote by I think William Morris - 'Have nothing you do not know to be useful or believe to be beautiful'. I think that wisdom can be applied well to writing. Speech marks certainly aren't beautiful and, with proper execution and the assistance of context, I propose their use can be forgone also.


----------



## Sam (Jun 21, 2013)

Beautiful? 

I don't write aesthetically. I write to get a story across in the simplest way possible. If I lose readers because they can't understand the difference between prose and dialogue, that's counter-productive in the extreme.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 21, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> I agree with this distinction. With so many stylistic decisions, writers tend to mistake something working_ in spite_ of those decisions with it working _because _of them.



I disagree. 

Look, unless you're inside somebody's head, there's no way to know how their stylistic choice works _for them_. You can say how it works for you. Perhaps you may have tried to read or write without speech marks or phonetically or any number of the 'stylistic' methods and hated it. But the fact is some people hate certain things which others like or are indifferent to. 

Personally I think its pretty tragic to think anybody could get so riled up about stylistic choices that they let it affect their entire perception of a piece. I used to get irritated as hell when my wife would criticize certain books because the author had a tendency for using run on sentences or whatever. But how about the BOOK, I would ask. Do you like the BOOK? And then she would look at me as though I hadn't just been listening for the past ten minutes. Point is, some people find it plain impossible to separate matters of style from substance.

The problem with criticizing stylistic choices is that it may be the writer's chosen method for reasons other than self-indulgence. I explained the main reason why I write the way I write and it is, more or less, the way I have always chosen to write. I find my reasons to be valid - and I didn't even mention the other reasons I have for prioritizing economy (its faster, it fits with the theme of my work, etc). 

So it isn't necessarily a 'decision' to do things that way, at least not one I could change without it feeling uncomfortable and strange. And look, its not like I'm inventing my own language or anything. It's only 'marks on a page', the use of which is invalidated by good technique. As Joseph pointed out, it is a fairly well-established 'stylistic choice' anyway. I think to imply it somehow handicaps a writer is a little unfair.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 21, 2013)

Sam said:


> Beautiful?
> 
> I don't write aesthetically. I write to get a story across in the simplest way possible.



Then that would qualify as 'useful' would it not?


----------



## JosephB (Jun 21, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> Well, I never claimed it worked better. I just don't think speech marks are important. I'm coming at that from a readers perspective, not a writers. Then as a writer I don't believe in including anything I don't find to be important merely as a matter of principle.



I come at everything from a readers perspective -- at least I try to. And in that respect, the main principle I'm concerned with is clarity. So based on my own preference and the stated preference of some pretty astute readers, I won't be giving up speech marks any time soon. 

Otherwise, I think the aesthetic rational is pretty weak -- and that's coming from a graphic designer who loves and appreciates the beauty of type. I'm betting most readers don't look at a page of type in a novel that way -- and wouldn't think about it unless there was some kind of problem with it. So I'm not really buying that.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 21, 2013)

JosephB said:


> I come at everything from a readers perspective -- at least I try to. And in that respect, the main principle I'm concerned with is clarity. So based on my own preference and the stated preference of some pretty astute readers, I won't be giving up speech marks any time soon.
> 
> Otherwise, I think the aesthetic rational is pretty weak -- and that's coming from a graphic designer who loves and appreciates the beauty of type. I'm betting the most readers don't look at a page of type in a novel that way -- and wouldn't think about it unless there was some kind of problem with it. So I'm not really buying that.



When did I say anything about aesthetics?


----------



## JosephB (Jun 21, 2013)

> Have nothing you do not  know to be useful or believe to be beautiful'. I think that wisdom can  be applied well to writing. Speech marks certainly aren't beautiful and,  with proper execution and the assistance of context, I propose their  use can be forgone also.



This doesn't have anything to do with aesthetics?



luckyscars said:


> Look, unless you're inside somebody's head, there's no way to know how their stylistic choice works _for them_. You can say how it works for you.



You can listen to what people have to say or just ask them. At some point, we're all going to be relying on the opinions of others as some measure of whether or not our work is successful or if it's getting across the way we want it to -- I don't see why stylistic choices would be an exception. Otherwise, having a good idea of what people like or will accept is just another facet of writing talent -- so you'd better have some idea of what works for "them."


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 21, 2013)

JosephB said:


> This doesn't have anything to do with aesthetics?



 You appear to be talking about the appearance on the page of speech marks



> I'm betting most readers don't look at a page of type in a novel that way -- and wouldn't think about it unless there was some kind of problem with it.




What I meant by 'theres nothing beautiful about speech marks', as it related to the proverb, is that speech marks do not add any kind of poetic quality, any emotion, any artistic quality to merit their inclusion. They are utilitarian features. And their use is, to my mind, dubious. I thought it was kind of obvious I was not talking about how they appear on the page.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 21, 2013)

No, not that obvious -- and I'm not so sure that quote isn't about aesthetics. McCarthy has made comments about "weird little marks all over the page" -- so it's not that far fetched.


----------



## Jeko (Jun 21, 2013)

> Personally I think its pretty tragic to think anybody could get so riled up about stylistic choices that they let it affect their entire perception of a piece.



I don't think this is a matter of style, but - as JosephB said - clarity. Without clarity style and substance both fall apart, and speech marks undeniably aid clarity and allow the reader a lot more room to enjoy, interpret and respond to the piece.

Or, to put it another way:

.eceip eht ot dnopser dna terpretni ,yojne ot moor erom tol a redaer eht wolla dna ytiralc dia ylbainednu skram hceeps dna ,trapa llaf htob ecnatsbus dna elyts ytiralc tuohtiW .ytiralc - dias BhpesoJ sa - tub ,elyts fo rettam a si siht kniht t'nod I


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 21, 2013)

JosephB said:


> This doesn't have anything to do with aesthetics?
> 
> 
> 
> You can listen to what people have to say or just ask them. At some point, we're all going to be relying on the opinions of others as some measure of whether or not our work is successful or if it's getting across the way we want it to -- I don't see why stylistic choices would be an exception. Otherwise, having a good idea of what people like or will accept is just another facet of writing talent -- so you'd better have some idea of what works for "them."



When it comes to writing, our use of language is not really any different to the way we speak. We can criticize the way people talk all day long and question their reasons for talking the way they do. Sometimes it is an affectation, yes, but more often than not it is simply the way they feel comfortable with. You wouldn't tell somebody their Australian accent was 'not working'. It would be pointless to do so. You might as well tell that to me when it comes to my choices on this issue. Not to be confused with bad grammatical choices - the literary 'speech impediment' if you will - which would be not to do with choice but poor education.


----------



## Jeko (Jun 21, 2013)

> You wouldn't tell somebody their Australian accent was 'not working'



I would if they were starring in an all-American movie. Likewise, I would say that your choice is a brave and creative decision, but it will likely impede your chances of recognition and/or publication.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 21, 2013)

JosephB said:


> No, not that obvious -- and I'm not so sure that quote isn't about aesthetics. McCarthy has made comments about "weird little marks all over the page" -- so it's not that far fetched.



That quote is originally about aesthetics. He was a textile designer. But again, I am not talking about physical aesthetics. I don't care about those. I don't know why this is that difficult to understand. All I am saying is that there are two measures, in my opinion, when it comes to writing: 1) Method and 2) Meaning. Method is the nuts and bolts and Meaning is what it is holding together. Beauty in fiction is meaning. Usefulness in writing is method. The medium and the 'weird little marks on the page' is irrelevant. And no, I don't care about McCarthy. Perhaps you should argue with him instead.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 21, 2013)

Cadence said:


> I would if they were starring in an all-American movie.


 
This makes zero sense.



> Likewise, I would say that your choice is a brave and creative decision, but it will likely impede your chances of recognition and/or publication.



Care to back this up with anything...?


----------



## JosephB (Jun 21, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> When it comes to writing, our use of language is not really any different to the way we speak. We can criticize the way people talk all day long and question their reasons for talking the way they do. Sometimes it is an affectation, yes, but more often than not it is simply the way they feel comfortable with. You wouldn't tell somebody their Australian accent was 'not working'. It would be pointless to do so. You might as well tell that to me when it comes to my choices on this issue. Not to be confused with bad grammatical choices - the literary 'speech impediment' if you will - which would be not to do with choice but poor education.



No, I wouldn’t tell an Australian his accent isn’t working. Unless he was addressing an American audience and his accent was so heavy or he was using so many colloquialisms or whatever that no one could understand him. In other words, if it was about clarity, then I think I could say it wasn’t working.

Same goes with speech marks --  if you or any other writer chooses to leave them out and I don’t think it’s working – then why shouldn’t I say so? Should people be immune to criticism because it’s about a stylistic choice? Sorry -- that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 21, 2013)

Cadence said:


> I don't think this is a matter of style, but - as JosephB said - clarity. Without clarity style and substance both fall apart, and speech marks undeniably aid clarity and allow the reader a lot more room to enjoy, interpret and respond to the piece.
> 
> Or, to put it another way:
> 
> .eceip eht ot dnopser dna terpretni ,yojne ot moor erom tol a redaer eht wolla dna ytiralc dia ylbainednu skram hceeps dna ,trapa llaf htob ecnatsbus dna elyts ytiralc tuohtiW .ytiralc - dias BhpesoJ sa - tub ,elyts fo rettam a si siht kniht t'nod I



I don't think you fully understand what 'style' means.


----------



## Jeko (Jun 21, 2013)

> This makes zero sense.



Imagine Django Unchained with Russell Crowe.



> Care to back this up with anything...?



As I said, it impedes clarity. It doesn't matter if you're 'good enough' to pull off not using them - all you're doing then is compensating for a bizarre choice of punctuation. It looks different and some people might like that - but it is in _no _way beneficial to the communication of the story, Brian said.


----------



## Jeko (Jun 21, 2013)

> I don't think you fully understand what 'style' means.



Enlighten me.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 21, 2013)

JosephB said:


> No, I wouldn’t tell an Australian his accent isn’t working. Unless he was addressing an American audience and his accent was so heavy or he was using so many colloquialisms or whatever that no one could understand him. In other words, if it was about clarity, then I think I could say it wasn’t working.



Same goes with speech marks --  if you or any other writer chooses to leave them out and I don’t think it’s working – then why shouldn’t I say so? Should people be immune to criticism because it’s about a stylistic choice? Sorry -- that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.[/QUOTE]

right, but you said yourself you didnt have a problem with the lack of speech marks, so this is not relevant.

again, not talking about anything that drastic here - to continue the accent thing, there is nothing 'heavy'. this is simply about what fits with a particular approach. my style may not be suitable for, say, a romance novel. it may not work for you either. but you would still be able to read and understand it, which is why cadence's above 'point' is nonsense. I am the biggest critic in the world of anything that does not make sense.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 21, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Enlighten me.



Sure will. This...




> .eceip eht ot dnopser dna terpretni ,yojne ot moor erom tol a redaer eht wolla dna ytiralc dia ylbainednu skram hceeps dna ,trapa llaf htob ecnatsbus dna elyts ytiralc tuohtiW .ytiralc - dias BhpesoJ sa - tub ,elyts fo rettam a si siht kniht t'nod I



...is not the same as this...



> When it comes to writing, our use of language is not really any different to the way we speak. We can criticize the way people talk all day long and question their reasons for talking the way they do. Sometimes it is an affectation, yes, but more often than not it is simply the way they feel comfortable with. You wouldn't tell somebody their Australian accent was 'not working'. It would be pointless to do so. You might as well tell that to me when it comes to my choices on this issue. Not to be confused with bad grammatical choices - the literary 'speech impediment' if you will - which would be not to do with choice but poor education.


----------



## escorial (Jun 21, 2013)

There are some expert writers on here and their ability is probably way beyond most. As were all at different stages in out writing experience I focus on the content as opposed to the use of punctuation..ect.


----------



## Jeko (Jun 21, 2013)

> Sure will.



Two quotes from Mark Twain:

1)_ An author should say what he is proposing to say, not merely come near it._

Of course quote 1 is not the same as quote 2. They came from two different people and contain two different texts. What is your point?

2)_ Employ a simple, straightforward style.

_This, for me, comes up against your decision to remove speech marks.



> but you would still be able to read and understand it, which is why cadence's above 'point' is nonsense.



Would I? You're basing your entire argument on the concept that your writing is fully understandable without speech marks. I have yet to have seen evidence for this.


----------



## Sam (Jun 21, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> This makes zero sense. Care to back this up with anything...?



If your name isn't Cormac McCarthy, prospective publishers may look at your manuscript and say you're trying too hard to stick out from the crowd. They might even think it was pretentious. 

In the publishing world, you don't want to give a publisher an excuse to bin your work on principle. Writing a manuscript bereft of proper punctuation is like sticking a post-it note on it saying, "Please bin me".


----------



## JosephB (Jun 21, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> right, but you said yourself you didnt have a problem with the lack of speech marks, so this is not relevant.



Not sure where you're getting that. I think I made it pretty clear that based on my experience -- reading a couple of McCarthy novels -- that I didn't care for it. I asked you why you leave them out -- and I get it. I don't really see the merit in it -- but whatever. It's not the hill I'm going to die on.

You lost me when you started talking about "the problem with criticizing stylistic choices." I don't see that there is a problem at all. If I find some stylistic choice is getting in the way of understanding the "substance" of a written work on any level -- even if it's something that just slows me down unnecessarily or causes me to backtrack -- then I'm going to say so. So go ahead an make the choice -- but be prepared to hear about it if people don't like it. Accept it as preference -- which is what you're asking on your end.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 21, 2013)

Cadence said:


> What is your point?



My point is that you have completely misinterpreted my point to suggest that I am advocating writing backwards or something equally absurd. Not at all. I am advocating only my own preference, which is for simplicity and efficiency as I (and some other people, I should add) see it and prefer it to be. Nothing to do with writing backwards, which nobody has ever executed successfully or coherently, and most likely never will.

_



			Employ a simple, straightforward style.
		
Click to expand...

_
That is your opinion. I think most people would agree there is nothing especially complicated about simply removing speech marks. But if you find it too challenging I offer you my sympathies. I don't think Mark Twain would struggle with it too much...



> You're basing your entire argument on the concept that your writing is fully understandable without speech marks. I have yet to have seen evidence for this.




You have also yet to see evidence that it isn't. But, since you mentioned it, here's an excerpt.



> Get up. He yanked him to his feet and flung him forward. The boy stumbled skittishly with the force, the useless sleeve flopping like an elephant’s nose. He coughed as he steadied. Loud and dreary and miserable. The Marshall eyed him like a wounded deer.
> 
> Well, he said. Aint you gonna run boy?
> 
> ...


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 21, 2013)

Sam said:


> I detest McCarthy's vehement refusal to use speech marks. It has a tendency to be confusing, and the last thing I want when I'm reading is to be confused by something so trivial as a speech mark. They are necessary. If they weren't, they'd have died out a long time ago.



Says who? You? It isn't just McCarthy who doesn't use them by the way. Other writers, such as Camus, preferred not to use them. Actually in many languages it is the norm not to have speech marks. I suggest you do some research.




> As for the notion that grammar comes second: Sure, you can write a novel with no grammar whatsoever. It might be a great novel. It might just be the best novel in the existence of the world. But if the grammar is so bad that the story ceases to be discernible, i.e. _Finnegans Wake_, you might as well be ******* into the wind.



I don't know who you think said grammar came second. Wasn't me. Grammar - necessary grammar - comes first at all times. Unneccessary grammar - ie that which has little or no bearing on the intelligibility of a piece - is entirely pointless. Again, I suggest you do some research.


----------



## OurJud (Jun 21, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Isn't that an oxymoron? It sounds like the author perfectly intended the book to be written in that way, and hence had sound reasoning.



Probably, but I simply meant I personally didn't know what that reasoning might be. Although thanks to shadowwalker I'm now a little clearer.


----------



## Sam (Jun 21, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> Says who? You? It isn't just McCarthy who doesn't use them by the way. Other writers, such as Camus, preferred not to use them. Actually in many languages it is the norm not to have speech marks. I suggest you do some research.



In many languages, you say. Is English one of them? The standard style for novels is to have speech marks. 90% of the ones you'll find in book-stores will have them. Of that 10% that doesn't, many of them are early 20th-century novels or books written by authors who have made their name and can dictate how they should look. For an aspiring writer trying to get a manuscript accepted, doing anything that deviates from the norm is effectively like sticking a massive post-it note on your work which says "for the bin". I've been published. I know what I'm talking about. Trying to make a manuscript stand out with extravagant styles is the mark of a beginner.  



> I don't know who you think said grammar came second. Wasn't me. Grammar - necessary grammar - comes first at all times. Unneccessary grammar - ie that which has little or no bearing on the intelligibility of a piece - is entirely pointless. Again, I suggest you do some research.



I never said it was you. 

To say speech marks are pointless, however, is patently absurd.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 21, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Not sure where you're getting that. I think I made it pretty clear that based on my experience -- reading a couple of McCarthy novels -- that I didn't care for it. I asked you why you leave them out -- and I get it. I don't really see the merit in it -- but whatever. It's not the hill I'm going to die on.
> 
> You lost me when you started talking about "the problem with criticizing stylistic choices." I don't see that there is a problem at all. If I find some stylistic choice is getting in the way of understanding the "substance" of a written work on any level -- even if it's something that just slows me down unnecessarily or causes me to backtrack -- then I'm going to say so. So go ahead an make the choice -- but be prepared to hear about it if people don't like it. Accept it as preference -- which is what you're asking on your end.



Well you said you got used to it, which I kind of interpreted to mean you didnt have a problem with it - i.e you were able to read it. 

I agree that if a stylistic choice gets in the way of understanding that's a problem. I have as little tolerance as the next guy for unintelligible nonsense. The disconnect here is that certain people - and to tell the truth I am not sure if you are one or them or not, but certainly Cadence appears to be, and Sam - feel that not using a few punctuation pieces is a big deal, one that affects their overall opinion of the story. I don't understand nor agree with that viewpoint. If I can 'get used' to a style and, through it, enjoy a story it is of no consequence. 

As far as whether different style choices should be criticized, again it depends on the comprehensibility of the work. When it comes to James Joyce I loathe most of his stuff because, for me, his stylistic choices are extreme enough I cannot get past them. To an extent its the same with Burroughs. On the other hand, I could get used to 'Trainspotting' and I am a big fan of McCarthy. So it depends. My problem with some of the stuff that's been said on here is that it SOUNDS as though certain people are suggesting that writing without speech marks is right up there with writing backwards and other such idiocy. That cannot be true, and if it is that is very sad. Again, writing without speech marks is by no means unprecedented. Writing backwards (or in the style of Finnegans Wake, which is almost the same thing) is a whole different story.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 21, 2013)

Sam said:


> In many languages, you say. Is English one of them? The standard style for novels is to have speech marks. 90% of the ones you'll find in book-stores will have them. Of that 10% that doesn't, many of them are early 20th-century novelists or authors who have made their name and can dictate how their novels should look. For an aspiring writer trying to get a manuscript accepted, doing anything that deviates from the norm is effectively like sticking a massive post-it note on your work which says, "For the bin". I've been published. I know what I'm talking about. Trying to make a manuscript stand out with extravagant styles is the mark of a beginner.



Okay but listen...

Just because you've been published does not mean you know everything there is to know about the process. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are not an agent. You are not best buddies with every agent in the world. And your assertion that those who use speech marks are 'mostly' authors who have made their name is factually false. James Frey's first novel (which was awful but it was a huge bestseller) did not have speech marks. From what I recall, neither did McCarthy's first novel 'The Orchard Keeper' (and in McCarthy's case he mailed his MS directly to Random House, so he was already all set up 'for the bin'). Didn't matter. 

Also the 90% argument might hold water if 50% of submissions were with speech marks and 50% were not. But I'd suggest the reason most published books have speech marks is because most submitted manuscripts have them, so in fact it has little to do with a strong preference in this regard. It's not like hundreds of thousands of manuscripts each day are being submitted and rejected over a lack of speech marks.

Thing is Sam, while I respect that you have been published I don't regard that as particularly significant to this point. I know how the business works well enough to know that yes, they will look for any chance possible to throw away a MS. But I do not agree that a lack of speech marks constitutes a big enough deal. Of course it always depends on the agent. I suppose some may think the way you do and throw away an entire novel over a lack of speech marks. Whatever. I'm not particularly interested in agents or readers who are so intolerant of what are, afterall, very minor differences in style that they just wont read something that isn't 'the way they like it to be'.


----------



## Sam (Jun 21, 2013)

Hey, that's fine. I'm not going to argue semantics with you. If it were me, I would want to do everything in my power to make sure a publisher didn't have the option to chuck my MS in the bin, but to each his/her own.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 21, 2013)

Sam said:


> Hey, that's fine. I'm not going to argue semantics with you. If it were me, I would want to do everything in my power to make sure a publisher didn't have the option to chuck my MS in the bin, but to each his/her own.



Give me one shred of evidence from a reliable source that novels without speech marks are statistically less likely to be published than novels with speech marks and I'm all yours. 

Seems pretty clear that you are masquerading your own bloviated opinions as fact.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jun 21, 2013)

Writers are quite free to write in whatever manner they choose. Readers are just as free to decide that the manner the writer chose makes the book too annoying or too difficult to read. And they have every right to say so. Using quotation marks may work - it may not. That decision isn't really up to the writer - it's up to the readers. What I said earlier is basically that writers may assume Choice A worked, when in fact it was Choice B that overcame the problems caused by Choice A. Or, as many writers seem to do when Choice B doesn't solve the problem, they decide that readers are mere Philistines who don't understand genius or artistry.

Personally, I would find the lack of quotation marks annoying, and when I'm reading for enjoyment, annoying is not something I put up with.


----------



## Jeko (Jun 21, 2013)

> My point is that you have completely misinterpreted my point to suggest that I am advocating writing backwards



I never did that. I'm saying what I see; you have every right to make your own choices on how you write, and you have every right to make it more difficult for your work to be published. What I don't understand is this: what _benefit _​is there in not using speech marks? Nonconformism is not equivalent to originality.



> That is your opinion.



That's Mark Twain's opinion. He's a good writer.



> _Get up. He yanked him to his feet and flung him forward. The boy stumbled skittishly with the force, the useless sleeve flopping like an elephant’s nose. He coughed as he steadied. Loud and dreary and miserable. The Marshall eyed him like a wounded deer. _
> 
> _Well, he said. Aint you gonna run boy?_
> 
> ...



I found that rather harder to read than I do most fiction. Some of it felt like a silent film. Some of it was purely confusing. Might look cool in a magazine, but I could never read a novel like this.



> Thing is Sam, while I respect that you have been published I don't regard that as particularly significant to this point.



Probably why this is getting nowhere.


----------



## Jeko (Jun 22, 2013)

In fact, I will take everything I said about not having speech marks making things harder to read back if you, luckyscars, can punctuate this scene with speech marks correctly:

-----------------------------------------------

You want to know what he did next? he said. He chopped the tree in half with his bare hands.

What?

He took the wood over to the lorry. Then he came back. 

-----------------------------------------------

Else I have proven my point.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 23, 2013)

Cadence said:


> What I don't understand is this: what _benefit _​is there in not using speech marks? Nonconformism is not equivalent to originality.



I never said a blessed thing about nonconformism or originality. Never used those words, nor any like it. Never said I did it to obtain those things. I said I did it because I prefer writing that way and I don't mind it as a reader, either. Are we understanding each other now?




> That's Mark Twain's opinion. He's a good writer.



It's Mark Twain's opinion that not including speech marks makes a piece not straightforward or easy to read? Look, if you're going to be that radical about anything that 'breaks the rules' then we might as well disregard anything by anybody who didn't write exactly 200-500 pages in perfect, linear prose, from a first or third person omniscent POV only, and with identical usage of punctuation, spelling and grammar. We might as well disregard writers such as James Joyce (who, again, I am not a fan of), William Burroughs, Jack Kerouac, Albert Camus, Stanislav Lem and so on, because every single one of those does not write in a 'simple, straightforward style' by your standards. In fact, my writing is extremely conventional and 'conformist' in comparison. Don't be silly, there is nothing insidious about not adhering to standardized regulations with punctuation, nor with anything else for that matter. The question is whether it works for a reader. Some people like my stuff, many dont. Do I care? Not really. Why don't I care? Because I write for the few crazies who don't happen to find small marks on the page, which are demonstrably not essential, too off-putting or 'confusing'.



> I found that rather harder to read than I do most fiction. Some of it felt like a silent film. Some of it was purely confusing. Might look cool in a magazine, but I could never read a novel like this.



That's all right.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 23, 2013)

Cadence said:


> In fact, I will take everything I said about not having speech marks making things harder to read back if you, luckyscars, can punctuate this scene with speech marks correctly:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


Hmm. That is the point of no quotes: one has to be sure that the writing is clear enough to be understood without them. And if it is, then it works. If it doesn't work without them then perhaps they are a crutch.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 23, 2013)

Cadence said:


> In fact, I will take everything I said about not having speech marks making things harder to read back if you, luckyscars, can punctuate this scene with speech marks correctly:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------
> 
> ...



The reason why this passage is confusing as it is is not because of any lack of speech marks. Sure, speech marks would help identify the speech more immediately, in much the same way that an electric tuner makes it easier to tune a guitar. Nevertheless you can tune a guitar by ear and you can also write this passage in a way that is clear. As I said many posts ago, it is primarily achieved through context and through modifying the structure to express what is dialogue and what is not.

For example, the first sentence is clearly dialogue. This is indicated through the 'he said'. The next sentence could indeed be spoken or could be an action done by the guy who posed the question. If it were an action I would modify the sentence to remove the ambiguity. I would probably do this by joining the two sentences to make a compound:

_You want to know what he did next? he said, as he chopped the tree in half with his bare hands.
_
The use of a compound negates the ambiguity by attaching the action with the subject. If it was dialogue I would write it like this:

_Want to know what he did next? he said. Chopped the tree in half with his own hands._

By removing the 'he', which is not - in my opinion - necessary anyway, I remove the association between the two 'he's'. This is one reason I use a lot of fragment sentences, because they are typical of dialogue and in most of the dialects I happen to use in my work people do not talk in standard English anyway.

Moving on: 'What?' is quite clearly dialogue. Nothing complex there. The last line: 'He took the wood over to the lorry. Then he came back.' is another curve-ball (not entirely sure what a 'lorry' is but if my memory of British English is correct I believe its some sort of truck?) Could be dialogue or action. So I would overcome this by identifying the subject further. Lets say the primary speaker here is an old man. I would write it like this:

_Want to know what he did next? he said. Chopped the tree in half with his bare hands.

What?

The old man took the wood over to the lorry. Then he came back.
_

or...

_Want to know what he did next? he said. Chopped the tree in half with his bare hands.

What?

Took the wood over to the lorry then came back._


Again, I am not trying to convert anybody here. This all started because I said I write this way because I liked it. I have been writing like this all my life and for the most part it has not caused any problems and my work has been well received so far. I was aware of the problems since the beginning, but as I say I find them easy enough to overcome because I know _how _ to overcome them. The situation you just presented me with does not plague me because I am able to avoid it to begin with. And no, I don't feel that makes it an automatic handicap.

It's like anything. Virtually any style comes with obstacles of some degree. Even something as simple as writing in first person can be difficult. Ultimately shadowwalker is correct that it is up to the reader. You can post as many Mark Twain quotes as you want and it doesnt make any difference. The man is long dead and is not here to attest to whether your use of his opinion is correct. I would point out, since you so liberally used him as an example, that Twain himself came under a lot of fire during his lifetime for his stylistic choices. This was, afterall, at a time when American writers were still very much pressured into writing according to British and European standards. To bring this back to the OP, there really are no 'rules' with writing. No rules at all. There is only what works and what does not work and what can work and what can never work. Nobody here has yet to prove anything. Until you do you might refrain from coming on so heavy handed.

A pet peeve of mine is when people start to muddy up an interesting and lively debate with arrogant assertions that their opinions are factually correct just because its what they happen to believe.


----------



## Jeko (Jun 23, 2013)

> A pet peeve of mine is when people start to muddy up an interesting and lively debate with arrogant assertions that their opinions are factually correct just because its what they happen to believe.



We all do that, luckyscars. 

You still haven't answered my main question; what _benefit _is there to removing speech marks? As I said, I'm fine if a writer wants to go in a different direction to the majority, but you said that you yourself are 'the biggest critic in the world of anything that does not make sense'. So, show me that your decision makes sense. Otherwise I will happily post more of my comments backwards.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 23, 2013)

If you'd take the time to read what I said before jumping in, I said several posts ago that I like it because it removes something I consider unnecessary. 

To me, that's a benefit.

In the same post I also said I find it more efficient, mostly because I am used to writing on an old manual typewriter and if you'd ever tried to write using one of them you'd know the value of economy. 

That's another benefit.

I also said I find it fits with the theme of my work. That's, admittedly, a little harder to explain but I suppose what I'm getting at is that an absence of some punctuation creates, to my mind, a visually sparse format. I am a big fan of existentialist philosophy and like to include those kinds of themes in my work. Therefore I like what I write to be 'stripped down', because that's how I treat my characters. While I am aware that a lack of punctuation by itself is not a necessary path to this, I do feel 'writing traditionally' would make this harder for me to execute. 

That's another benefit.

I also said its the way I like to write, its the way I feel most comfortable writing, and it fits with my beliefs as to how writing should be.

That's the only benefit that matters.


----------



## Jeko (Jun 23, 2013)

Okay, that makes more sense. I still believe it won't do you any favours in the publishing world, though. And I disagree with you on the note that speech marks are unnecessary in any case.


----------

