# Ursula Le Guin on "Good" Writing



## Kyle R (Jan 24, 2018)

Celebrated, multi award-winning SFF author Ursula K. Le Guin passed away this year, at 88 years of age. She left behind mourning fans and fellow authors, who commented not only on her writing talents, but also on her grace as an individual.

She was an advocate for encouraging aspiring authors, and believed that books were essential to nurturing our humanity. "We read books to find out who we are," she said. "What other people, real or imaginary, do and think and feel … is an essential guide to our understanding of what we ourselves are and may become."




In 2015, she responded to a rather vague and lofty interview question, "How do you make something good?"

Here was her answer:

Well, you could start with butter and fresh farm eggs, it’s hard to go wrong from there, unless you’re a vegan. All right, I’ll try to be serious — it’s a serious question. But an awfully big one. I hope to get some smaller ones, such as, “Do I have to outline my plot first?” or “How often can I split an infinitive?”

I guess the way to make something good is to make it well.

If the ingredients are extra good (truffles, vivid prose, fascinating characters) that’s a help. But it’s what you do with them that counts. With the most ordinary ingredients (potatoes, everyday language, commonplace characters) — and care and skill in using them — you can make something extremely good. A lot of memorable novels have been made that way. Even with undistinguished language and predictable characters, if a story has interesting, convincing ideas or events, good pacing, a narrative that carries the reader to a conclusion that in one way or another satisfies — it’s a good story. A lot of memorable sf has been made that way. 

Inexperienced writers tend to seek the recipes for writing well. You buy the cookbook, you take the list of ingredients, you follow the directions, and behold! A masterpiece! The Never-Falling Soufflé!

Wouldn’t it be nice? But alas, there are no recipes. We have no Julia Child. Successful professional writers are not withholding mysterious secrets from eager beginners. The only way anybody ever learns to write well is by trying to write well. This usually begins by reading good writing by other people, and writing very badly by yourself, for a long time.

The poet Theodore Roethke said it: “I learn by going where I have to go.”

There are “secrets” to making a story work — but they apply only to that particular writer and that particular story. You find out how to make the thing work by working at it — coming back to it, testing it, seeing where it sticks or wobbles or cheats, and figuring out how to make it go where it has to go.

At this stage, having the opinion of readers qualified to judge, or a trusted peer-group, can be tremendously useful. Other eyes can see what you’re too close to your work to see, give perspective, open up possibilities.

On the other hand, the pressure of opinion — from readers, classmates, teachers, in a MFA program or a workshop, from an agent, from an editor — may end up as worse than useless. If your manuscript doesn’t follow the rules of what’s currently trendy, the rules of what’s supposed to be salable, the rule some great authority laid down, you’re supposed to make it do so. Most such rules are hogwash, and even sound ones may not apply to your story. What’s the use of a great recipe for soufflé if you’re making blintzes?

The important thing is to know what it is you’re making, where your story is going, so that you use only the advice that genuinely helps you get there. The hell with soufflé, stick to your blintzes.

We make something good, a blintz, a story, by having worked at blintzmaking or storywriting till we’ve learned how to do it.

With a blintz, the process is fairly routine. With stories, the process is never twice the same. Even a story written to the most prescriptive formula, like some westerns or romances, can be made poorly, or made well.

Making anything well involves a commitment to the work. And that requires courage: you have to trust yourself. It helps to remember that the goal is not to write a masterpiece or a best-seller. The goal is to be able to look at your story and say, Yes. That’s as good as I can make it.

And then, once in a while, none of that sweat and trial and error and risk-taking is necessary. Something just comes to you as you write. You write it down, it’s there, it’s really good. You look at it unbelieving. Did I do that?

I think that kind of gift mostly comes as the pay-off for trying, patiently, repeatedly, to make something well.​
-----

What do you think of her response? :encouragement:


----------



## Terry D (Jan 24, 2018)

Another great speaks truth. She sums it all up in there, it really is that simple. But simple doesn't mean easy.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 24, 2018)

Terry D said:


> Another great speaks truth. She sums it all up in there, it really is that simple. But simple doesn't mean easy.



Laughing, it's almost like we see things differently, Terry. We agreed once? Really?

For me, reading that was like eating sugar. It was inspiring, and it could make people feel good, but didn't really have any practical advice. But, if that was useful to anyone, great. It's just not my style of useful advice, and I wanted to explain how I saw it.

(I suspect it was not fair to serious cooks.)


----------



## Terry D (Jan 25, 2018)

> Successful professional writers are not withholding mysterious secrets from eager beginners. The only way anybody ever learns to write well is by trying to write well. This usually begins by reading good writing by other people, and writing very badly by yourself, for a long time.




Practical advice, simply stated.




> There are “secrets” to making a story work — but they apply only to that particular writer and that particular story. You find out how to make the thing work by working at it — coming back to it, testing it, seeing where it sticks or wobbles or cheats, and figuring out how to make it go where it has to go.




Practical advice. 




> At this stage, having the opinion of readers qualified to judge, or a trusted peer-group, can be tremendously useful. Other eyes can see what you’re too close to your work to see, give perspective, open up possibilities.
> 
> On the other hand, the pressure of opinion — from readers, classmates, teachers, in a MFA program or a workshop, from an agent, from an editor — may end up as worse than useless. If your manuscript doesn’t follow the rules of what’s currently trendy, the rules of what’s supposed to be salable, the rule some great authority laid down, you’re supposed to make it do so. *Most such rules are hogwash*, and even sound ones may not apply to your story.




Practical advice with a cherry on top. But I believe that you don't see it because you want there to be some mysterious complexity to writing fiction. There isn't. There's no one-size-fits-all way of creating good stories and books.


----------



## Bayview (Jan 25, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> Laughing, it's almost like we see things differently, Terry. We agreed once? Really?
> 
> For me, reading that was like eating sugar. It was inspiring, and it could make people feel good, but didn't really have any practical advice. But, if that was useful to anyone, great. It's just not my style of useful advice, and I wanted to explain how I saw it.
> 
> (I suspect it was not fair to serious cooks.)



I agree with Terry that the "stop looking for the magic secret" advice was pretty useful!

It's hard to be useful to someone who's looking for something that doesn't exist, other than by telling them to stop looking.


----------



## Roac (Jan 26, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> In 2015, she responded to a rather vague and lofty interview question, "How do you make something good?"
> 
> Here was her answer:
> Well, you could start with butter and fresh farm eggs, it’s hard to go wrong from there ​


​

I would have said bacon…but that’s just me.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 26, 2018)

Bayview said:


> I agree with Terry that the "stop looking for the magic secret" advice was pretty useful!.



It's natural to like something you agree with. Bur for this to actually be useful to you and Terry, it would have to be something you somehow didn't know or didn't believe.

Then, whatever time you and Terry would have spent looking for magic secret advice during the next month can be used more profitably.

I don't think any searchers expect the advice to be actual magic, like a magic spell, and if they are reading it, perhaps it is not a secret either. Perhaps they want a simple idea that quickly improves their writing substantially. Do you think that's  better way of phrasing it? I think I would have had a better reaction to that.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 26, 2018)

> The only way anybody ever learns to write well is by trying to write well. This usually begins by reading good writing by other people,



That's contradictory, right?

It leaves out reading advice, which I suspect is the main issue here. To give one example, it seems to me that most writers do not have the concept of the awesome moment, and those that do usually do not know how to write it. And then some do and write these great moments in their books. It seems to me there must be some way to give useful advice about that. I could be wrong, but I did try. I can also give advice of very minor value, but to me that's part of writing -- I want to think deeply about using exclamation marks or _for _as a coordinating conjunction.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 26, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> It's natural to like something you agree with. Bur for this to actually be useful to you and Terry, it would have to be something you somehow didn't know or didn't believe.
> 
> Then, whatever time you and Terry would have spent looking for magic secret advice during the next month can be used more profitably.
> 
> I don't think any searchers expect the advice to be actual magic, like a magic spell, and if they are reading it, perhaps it is not a secret either. Perhaps they want a simple idea that quickly improves their writing substantially. Do you think that's  better way of phrasing it? I think I would have had a better reaction to that.




It was very useful the first time I read it -- not this interview specifically, but the 'no magic solutions' advice in general. So, I think it's damned good advice for new writers who might be reading it for the first time. It doesn't matter how you phrase it, the point is, there are no quick ways to dramatically improve your writing. It takes reading and writing.



EmmaSohan said:


> That's contradictory, right?
> 
> It leaves out reading advice, which I suspect is the main issue here. To give one example, it seems to me that most writers do not have the concept of the awesome moment, and those that do usually do not know how to write it. And then some do and write these great moments in their books. It seems to me there must be some way to give useful advice about that. I could be wrong, but I did try. I can also give advice of very minor value, but to me that's part of writing -- I want to think deeply about using exclamation marks or _for _as a coordinating conjunction.



Not contradictory at all. The reading advice is right there "This usually means reading good writing by other people." Even bad writers perfectly understand, what you insist on calling, "the awesome moment". Enjoying those moments in their favorite books is probably why they wanted to start writing to begin with. I doubt anyone thinks of effective scenes as "awesome moments", except you, but those emotional highs and lows are what writing is all about. Have you ever completed the writing of a novel? If not, I'd suggest you try it. You'll find that you learn far more by the act of writing that book than you ever will by contemplating punctuation, or trying to generate new verbiage for common writing concepts. That's all Le Guin was saying, "To be a writer you must read and write."

It's the same thing a very long list of successful writers have said for many years. I know you won't believe them, but, IMO, it's foolish to keep trying to prove them wrong.


----------



## Bayview (Jan 26, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> It's natural to like something you agree with. Bur for this to actually be useful to you and Terry, it would have to be something you somehow didn't know or didn't believe.
> 
> Then, whatever time you and Terry would have spent looking for magic secret advice during the next month can be used more profitably.
> 
> I don't think any searchers expect the advice to be actual magic, like a magic spell, and if they are reading it, perhaps it is not a secret either. Perhaps they want a simple idea that quickly improves their writing substantially. Do you think that's  better way of phrasing it? I think I would have had a better reaction to that.



I guess you're right - if hearing it from an acknowledged master isn't compelling evidence, then this article isn't too useful to you.

But I'm wondering what _would_ be useful. What would someone have to say in order to convince you that there's no point looking for a simple idea that quickly improves your writing substantially?


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 26, 2018)

Terry D said:


> It was very useful the first time I read it -- not this interview specifically, but the 'no magic solutions' advice in general. So, I think it's damned good advice for new writers who might be reading it for the first time. It doesn't matter how you phrase it, the point is, there are no quick ways to dramatically improve your writing. It takes reading and writing.



Okay, this helps me understand. I couldn't imagine someone who thought there was some magic advice or some quick way to dramatically improve their writing. So hearing you were like that helps me appreciate her advice.

To finish your point, you have to argue that you learned that this wasn't true by reading that from other authors. If you learned that from experience, that would support my impression.

My first introduction to real writing was that every word matters, word order matters, etc. So Easy and Simple were never on the menu.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 26, 2018)

Seriously, there is a question of what advice we would give to beginners and people starting their first novel. Like to, um, write. And we talk about how to write everyday, and whether or not to listen to music, and pantsing versus planning.

And they live in a world where they get a lot of advice, often promising to the secret ingredient. The advice often seems questionable; the process of just following advice seems wrong.

So there's a lot to be said for just writing, reading, ignoring advice, and following their heart (or intuition or whatever). I think WF says it better than Le Guin.

And, to repeat, I just wonder if more is possible for more advanced writers. Probably not, but I feel an obligation to occasionally try.


----------



## Bayview (Jan 27, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> So there's a lot to be said for just writing, reading, ignoring advice, and following their heart (or intuition or whatever). I think WF says it better than Le Guin.



I think Le Guin has significantly more authority!



> And, to repeat, I just wonder if more is possible for more advanced writers. Probably not, but I feel an obligation to occasionally try.



I've run up against this exact same frustration. I think I'm a "natural" writer in that I've never seriously studied the craft, never done workshops or taken courses or followed a mentor, and it's gotten me this far. But I'd like to go further, and it's pretty hard to figure out what the logical next steps are. Just keep doing the same thing I've been doing all along (writing and editing and reading and comparing)? There's nothing better?

I've bought the "how to" books but they seem pretty basic, either common sense or way too formal and formulaic.

So it's actually totally reassuring (and helpful!) for me to read authors I respect confirm that I'm more-or-less on the right track. There's nothing I'm missing. It really is just a case of slogging through...


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 27, 2018)

Bayview said:


> I think Le Guin has significantly more authority!
> 
> I've run up against this exact same frustration. I think I'm a "natural" writer in that I've never seriously studied the craft, never done workshops or taken courses or followed a mentor, and it's gotten me this far. But I'd like to go further, and it's pretty hard to figure out what the logical next steps are. Just keep doing the same thing I've been doing all along (writing and editing and reading and comparing)? There's nothing better?
> 
> ...



First, a technical thing. You are suggesting that I should accept Le Guin's advice because she is famous. Actually, it seems fairly common here to advise people _not _to just accept advice, no matter how famous the author is. Also, when we find people looking for a magic secret solution (which I doubt is possible, she has set up a straw man), we probably would tell them it isn't happening but also that they should try a few. Or expect them to try a few, but, they shouldn't trust that it's working, no matter how famous the answer is. Right?

So, you find Le Guin reassuring. I think she does that well. And you found her helpful, _assuming she is correct_. Actually, there is splendid advice on some topics, for example on how to set up so that your resolution is as exciting as possible. I don't even know how people could avoid that advice. I don't know how much you could have figured out for yourself or from reading. But once you (or anyone) reads it, then it's a lot easier to think about as you read and write.

I think that advice leads to weak endings, and I cannot point you to any place you can get good advice on endings. So all you can do is write and read, but that isn't going to work very well, in my opinion.

Do you find that reassuring? Does that make you happy? I don't think so. If Le Guin is sugar, I'm kale. Fortunately, you can ignore me because I am the exact opposite of famous and successful. But that won't help you very much if I am right.

Fragments get dissed; if you were to read advice, you would think they are a suboptimal form of writing. Or perhaps someone will begrudgingly admit they allowable. From your reading, you could get that they are used in a variety of ways and are a powerful form of writing. If you want to be a good writer, I think you need to practice and perfect your fragments.

But you can read a lot of books and not get that. Once you are alerted to their potential, it's not that difficult to find different ways fragments are used. But from one thread on WF I got the impression that most people weren't aware of them, or maybe knew one.

Oh, Sam said that if there was an award for over-analyzing, I would get it. Which means I analyzing things so much that I stand out. I am accused of overthinking and not making things simple. Laughing, those could be legitimate concerns, and they are about as attractive as a dentist visit to anyone who wanted to believe things are simple. But . . .

*​*


----------



## sas (Jan 27, 2018)

When I noticed Le Guin mentioned, I had to keep reading. I had just (and, I mean just) finished reading The New Yorker interview/article about her. Others may want to read it. 

I tend to side with Emma regarding Le Guin  I was disappointed in her advice. Who doesn't know any of that? She blew it off with the obvious. Now, I admit to being a bit prejudice because I lived near Elmore Leonard who actually took the time to list some damn useful stuff about writing. Elmore sold tons of books; some made into movies, too, so he must know something.  The following rules may not apply to all genres (I personally think they do)....yet, I love them:

[h=1]*“Elmore Leonard's Ten Rules of Writing

1. Never open a book with weather.
2. Avoid prologues.
3. Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue.
4. Never use an adverb to modify the verb "said”…he admonished gravely.
5. Keep your exclamation points under control. You are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose. 
6. Never use the words "suddenly" or "all hell broke loose."
7. Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.
8. Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.
9. Don't go into great detail describing places and things.
10. Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.

My most important rule is one that sums up the 10.

If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it.”*[/h]
.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 27, 2018)

Ursula Le Guin said:
			
		

> Inexperienced writers tend to seek the recipes for writing well.



This line resonated with me—mostly because I was (and, to some degree, still am) that writer.

Who can deny the lure of a list, recipe, or formula that promises to improve your writing? It says, "Seek no more! The one-and-true-path has been discovered, and it can be yours, too, for just four easy payments of $19.99!"

Like a sailor from those old myths, I went chasing after those siren songs. (I have the bookcase to prove it, chock full of far too many How-To books on the craft of writing.)

The problem with those cookie-cutter approaches is that you'll always find some authors who do the very things that you've been advised _not_ to do—and they, perplexingly, make for damn good reading.

I've had those head-scratching discoveries so many times.

For example: Dwight Swain says not to put things out of order (Don't say the teacher yelped _before_ describing her sitting on the thumbtack!). To put things out of order, he tells us, is akin to jarring the reader. They may not understand why, but things will feel a little "off".

And yet, sometimes seeing the teacher yelp _before_ you know what's caused it is the very thing that makes you lean forward, eagerly turning those pages.

So what's the writing student to do? On the hand, they've got a rule that they're told to follow (keep things chronological, cause before effect). On the other hand, they've got an example where the reversal makes for good reading. Do they adjust the rule? Ditch it? Ignore the example as some bewildering outlier?

What I've found is that, for pretty much every rule or maxim you come across, there's some author out there who's breaking it, and breaking it _well_. Which puts the whole notion of rules themselves at question.

For me, I think "approach" fits better than "rule"—it allows for flexibility and experimentation. It also allows you to ditch the so-called "rule" whenever it doesn't work for you (or whenever you want to handle things differently).

Eventually, over enough time and experience, playing fast and loose with rules and maxims will likely put the writer in a position where they feel like they can do _anything_, as long as they do it _well_. Which is probably the perspective from which Le Guin was writing. :encouragement:


----------



## TKent (Jan 27, 2018)

These are great, and yet I can find exceptions to all of the things on this list in books that to me are brilliant. (well, maybe the exclamation marks is one that I've not seen skillfully ignored). I do like your own summary though! If it sounds like writing, rewrite it. I like that a lot  



sas said:


> When I noticed Le Guin mentioned, I had to keep reading. I had just (and, I mean just) finished reading The New Yorker interview/article about her. Others may want to read it.
> 
> I tend to side with Emma regarding Le Guin  I was disappointed in her advice. Who doesn't know any of that? She blew it off with the obvious. Now, I admit to being a bit prejudice because I lived near Elmore Leonard who actually took the time to list some damn useful stuff about writing. Elmore sold tons of books; some made into movies, too, so he must know something.  The following rules may not apply to all genres (I personally think they do)....yet, I love them:
> 
> ...


----------



## sas (Jan 27, 2018)

Kent, Wish I could take credit for: *If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it."

*Leonard added it to list. I agree that rules don't fit everything, but I doubt that many in WF are trying to write War & Peace. They seem to want to write stories that have mass appeal and that, well...........sell. 

.


----------



## Bayview (Jan 27, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> First, a technical thing. You are suggesting that I should accept Le Guin's advice because she is famous.



No, there are lots of famous people whose writing advice I wouldn't advise following. I think we should seriously consider LeGuin's advice because she's a damn master of her craft. Our craft.



> Actually, it seems fairly common here to advise people _not _to just accept advice, no matter how famous the author is.



I'm not prepared to argue for or against what other people on this site have said. I'm just talking about me and my opinion.



> Also, when we find people looking for a magic secret solution (which I doubt is possible, she has set up a straw man), we probably would tell them it isn't happening but also that they should try a few. Or expect them to try a few, but, they shouldn't trust that it's working, no matter how famous the answer is. Right?



You kinda lost me on that part, and, really, on the rest of this. 



> So, you find Le Guin reassuring. I think she does that well. And you found her helpful, _assuming she is correct_. Actually, there is splendid advice on some topics, for example on how to set up so that your resolution is as exciting as possible. I don't even know how people could avoid that advice. I don't know how much you could have figured out for yourself or from reading. But once you (or anyone) reads it, then it's a lot easier to think about as you read and write.
> 
> I think that advice leads to weak endings, and I cannot point you to any place you can get good advice on endings. So all you can do is write and read, but that isn't going to work very well, in my opinion.
> 
> Do you find that reassuring? Does that make you happy? I don't think so. If Le Guin is sugar, I'm kale. Fortunately, you can ignore me because I am the exact opposite of famous and successful. But that won't help you very much if I am right.



You're saying... are you saying the same thing as LeGuin? The common advice on how to have exciting resolutions is useless, and you don't have any better advice so the best thing to do is write and read and figure it out? Is that what you're saying? Because I think that's what LeGuin was saying as well, so... I'm not sure what you're arguing against...?

Oh, are you kale because you don't think an_ything _is going to work? Advice won't work and reading and writing won't work so it's all hopeless?

What am I missing?



> Fragments get dissed; if you were to read advice, you would think they are a suboptimal form of writing. Or perhaps someone will begrudgingly admit they allowable. From your reading, you could get that they are used in a variety of ways and are a powerful form of writing. If you want to be a good writer, I think you need to practice and perfect your fragments.
> 
> But you can read a lot of books and not get that. Once you are alerted to their potential, it's not that difficult to find different ways fragments are used. But from one threat on WF I got the impression that most people weren't aware of them, or maybe knew one.



Are you talking about sentence fragments? Lots of books use them. I use them all the time. I don't get what you're saying.

And someone on WF _threatened_ you over sentence fragments? That can't be right. I feel like I'm reading all of this wrong, but I'm usually a pretty good reader...


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 27, 2018)

Thread, not threat. Sorry. I will change the original


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 27, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> For example: Dwight Swain says not to put things out of order (Don't say the teacher yelped _before_ describing her sitting on the thumbtack!). To put things out of order, he tells us, is akin to jarring the reader. They may not understand why, but things will feel a little "off".
> 
> And yet, sometimes seeing the teacher yelp _before_ you know what's caused it is the very thing that makes you lean forward, eagerly turning those pages.
> 
> ...



I called it time-twisting (which I assume got two thumbs down from Terry). I don't understand your example -- in first person, the yelp comes first, right?

Right, it's not a rule to always be followed, it's just one factor. But to me there's no reason for 





> "SorryI'm a little late, babe," he said after kissing me on the cheek.



Anyway, if you noticed when you had presenting things in the wrong order, then checked and worried about it, that might improve your writing. Even (or especially) when you sometimes decided not to follow that advice.

So it's what you do with the advice. It can help you think about things.


----------



## Bayview (Jan 28, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> I called it time-twisting (which I assume got two thumbs down from Terry). I don't understand your example -- in first person, the yelp comes first, right?
> 
> Right, it's not a rule to always be followed, it's just one factor. But to me there's no reason for
> 
> ...



I think the "sorry I'm a little late" line could absolutely work with the action afterward, depending on which of the actions (the speech or the kiss) is most important in context, how the line fits in with previous and later lines, etc.

And all of that is specific to the individual work in question, which is LeGuin's point - rules don't work in a cross-the-board approach. Authors have to figure out what works for the individual piece in question and they'll have to figure this out for each thing they work on. There's no learn-it-and-live-by-it possible--we always have to work it out fresh.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 28, 2018)

Bayview said:


> I think the "sorry I'm a little late" line could absolutely work with the action afterward, depending on which of the actions (the speech or the kiss) is most important in context, how the line fits in with previous and later lines, etc.
> 
> And all of that is specific to the individual work in question, which is LeGuin's point - rules don't work in a cross-the-board approach. Authors have to figure out what works for the individual piece in question and they'll have to figure this out for each thing they work on. There's no learn-it-and-live-by-it possible--we always have to work it out fresh.



Can we call this (presenting things in temporal order) a principle? I can imagine someone learning this (which is work), not learning why it's important (laziness), applying it consistently (work), and not looking for any exceptions (lazy).

But if someone thought there were no principles in writing, then they wouldn't even have to learn this principle (lazy). We can imagine them applying this principle anyway as they write (success if this is a good rule), but they might be insensitive to it or forget about it as they concentrate on something else.

So, oddly enough, when I hear people saying their are no principles in writing, I worry that they are hoping for an easy solution where they don't have to learn those principles. Or, I could worry that beginning writers might understand it that way. You don't want to say that, right?


----------



## Bayview (Jan 28, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> Can we call this (presenting things in temporal order) a principle? I can imagine someone learning this (which is work), not learning why it's important (laziness), applying it consistently (work), and not looking for any exceptions (lazy).
> 
> But if someone thought there were no principles in writing, then they wouldn't even have to learn this principle (lazy). We can imagine them applying this principle anyway as they write (success if this is a good rule), but they might be insensitive to it or forget about it as they concentrate on something else.
> 
> So, oddly enough, when I hear people saying their are no principles in writing, I worry that they are hoping for an easy solution where they don't have to learn those principles. Or, I could worry that beginning writers might understand it that way. You don't want to say that, right?



I was unaware of the principle until you mentioned it. I think that's where I get hung up on conversations like this... I'm a really instinctive writer and I expect I follow many "principles" of writing just because I've absorbed them through reading lots of great fiction, but there's no conscious awareness for me.

I might write a line, say, "damn, that doesn't sound right" and then rewrite it and say, "yeah, that's better", but I wouldn't have gone through the conscious-application-of-a-principle stage.

I accept that there are other writers out there who approach things differently, and maybe for them, it makes sense to work out an awareness of general writing principles. And I guess I don't see a problem with that, as long as they're able to keep an eye out for the _many_ exceptions I think they'll find.

And I haven't met too many of the rule- sorry, principle-focused writers who seem able to do that. I mean, I have no idea what's going on in their heads as they write, but I've read a lot of writing that follows all the rules but ends up feeling flat and passionless, and I've read critiques that seem to focus on application of the rules without first stepping back and asking whether the piece works as it is, despite its status vis-a-vis the rules.

So I'm definitely cautious about the general idea of following principles. But I admit my hesitation is largely due to my personal experiences and preferences.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 28, 2018)

You describe this nightmarish scene of a writer just consciously applying principles they've learned. That sounds like a nightmare to me too. I like being inspired and in the moment and fresh and creative and I am not sure how principles fits in with that. Another nightmare is overusing or misusing some principle.

So, if I have a blah sentence, I know the principle to combine it with another sentence, and why I might do that. And I know the principle to eliminate something if it's blah and not needed. And if none of those work, I would have just said I did the best I could. But I have recently discovered most of my blah sentences (that survive the previous cuts) can be fixed with a good adverb. I can believe that's personal to me and how I write, because adverbs are hard for me to write so I tend to be skimpy on them. But I can run all of those principles quickly, once I have felt that my sentence is blah and I am focusing on it.

And that means sometimes the "principles" just expand my options. And nothing tells me which adverb to add, so I still have room to be creative.


----------



## moderan (Jan 28, 2018)

It's not a _principle_. It's an _observation_. It's _maybe_ a rule of thumb, something to follow if you like...there are no universal writing principles, except for the one that says get your ass in the chair and write, and you'll figure out the rest.
Trying to define writing or impose unilateral definition is like trying to pin the tail on a cloud.


----------



## Bayview (Jan 29, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> You describe this nightmarish scene of a writer just consciously applying principles they've learned. That sounds like a nightmare to me too. I like being inspired and in the moment and fresh and creative and I am not sure how principles fits in with that. Another nightmare is overusing or misusing some principle.
> 
> So, if I have a blah sentence, I know the principle to combine it with another sentence, and why I might do that. And I know the principle to eliminate something if it's blah and not needed. And if none of those work, I would have just said I did the best I could. But I have recently discovered most of my blah sentences (that survive the previous cuts) can be fixed with a good adverb. I can believe that's personal to me and how I write, because adverbs are hard for me to write so I tend to be skimpy on them. But I can run all of those principles quickly, once I have felt that my sentence is blah and I am focusing on it.
> 
> And that means sometimes the "principles" just expand my options. And nothing tells me which adverb to add, so I still have room to be creative.



So you're aware of the "rule" to avoid adverbs at all costs, but for you and your writing (or at least your current project) you've found it best to not follow that rule. Fair enough. But then what was the value of knowing the rule in the first place?


----------



## Terry D (Jan 29, 2018)

First, let's trot back to the beginning here and remember that this isn't Le Guin giving advice, it's Le Guin answering a very broad, very vague question in an interview. She was, in no way, attempting to educate young writers here, so her answer needs to be viewed in that context. If you really want to know what advice she would give, Google 'Urusla Le Guin on writing.' There is quite a bit to be found. She was, after all, a writing teacher as well as an award winning author.




EmmaSohan said:


> Okay, this helps me understand. I couldn't imagine someone who thought there was some magic advice or some quick way to dramatically improve their writing. So hearing you were like that helps me appreciate her advice.
> 
> To finish your point, you have to argue that you learned that this wasn't true by reading that from other authors. If you learned that from experience, that would support my impression.
> 
> My first introduction to real writing was that every word matters, word order matters, etc. So Easy and Simple were never on the menu.



I don't think I ever assumed there were any 'silver bullets' to writing. How could there be? What techniques could magically prove successful for writers as diverse as Poe, Wells, Stoker, Shelly, Bradbury, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Dickens, and King? The first time I ever read anyone actually say it was probably the mystery writer Lawrence Block. His were some of the first books on writing that I ever read, so Block probably said it in there somewhere. But it wouldn't have been a revelation.



EmmaSohan said:


> Seriously, there is a question of what advice we would give to beginners and people starting their first novel. Like to, um, write. And we talk about how to write everyday, and whether or not to listen to music, and pantsing versus planning.



The discussions about planning/not planning, music, what time of day to write, whether or not to set daily word count goals, etc. all that stuff is fluff. That's just people sitting around a coffee shop shooting the shit. No one is going to become a better writer by listening to that crap, but it's still fun to chat about. Every writer finds their own process.



> And they live in a world where they get a lot of advice, often promising to the secret ingredient. The advice often seems questionable; the process of just following advice seems wrong.
> 
> So there's a lot to be said for just writing, reading, ignoring advice, and following their heart (or intuition or whatever). I think WF says it better than Le Guin.



It's good that you get helpful advice from WF, but there's a lot of bad advice here too. Let's say I'm someone interested in backpacking in Yellowstone, but I'm not entirely sure what I'll need, what trails to take, or what to do to keep myself safe from bears and whatnot. Would it be better for me to go on-line and get advice from well-intentioned strangers who might never have even worn a pair of hiking boots or seen a map of Yellowstone, or would it be better to talk to a guide who's spent years on those trails, who knows the weather there, and who has dealt with the bears and wolves?



> And, to repeat, I just wonder if more is possible for more advanced writers. Probably not, but I feel an obligation to occasionally try.



Are you suggesting you have more insight, more knowledge, or more skill than "more advanced writers?" 



EmmaSohan said:


> First, a technical thing. You are suggesting that I should accept Le Guin's advice because she is famous.*​*



No one suggested you should accept Le Guin's advice because she was famous. Famous don't mean shit. Paris Hilton is famous and I wouldn't take her advice about anything. Le Guin's voice has weight because she has been-there-and-done-that. Her body of work speaks for itself -- unlike many people in forums like this who dish out 'advice' like candy at Halloween.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 29, 2018)

Bayview said:


> So you're aware of the "rule" to avoid adverbs at all costs, but for you and your writing (or at least your current project) you've found it best to not follow that rule. Fair enough. But then what was the value of knowing the rule in the first place?



The short story is, that issue was useful for me to think about.

I ended up trying to list all of the reasons why using adverbs might be undesirable. Notice that I was trying to _understand _the "rule" rather than just follow or not follow it. I came up with around five reasons. Those still left times when there was no reason against using the adverb.

Then, when I found people using adverbs suboptimally (against my reasons) I tried my best to say they were wrong, but I couldn't find a better choice. So I discovered toleration of less-than-perfect adverbs. And again, I will point out I didn't just throw my hands and say there were exceptions. Now I will use suboptimal adverbs because they are better than the alternative.

That started me on using adverbs to punch up sentences that were needed but couldn't be fixed any other way. Adverbs get misused and overused because they can be powerful.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 29, 2018)

Terry D said:


> No one suggested you should accept Le Guin's advice because she was famous. Famous don't mean shit. Paris Hilton is famous and I wouldn't take her advice about anything. Le Guin's voice has weight because she has been-there-and-done-that. Her body of work speaks for itself -- unlike many people in forums like this who dish out 'advice' like candy at Halloween.



This, it turns out, is bad advice. King is my model for understandable reading; to me, he is a technical expert for grammar and punctuation. He advises against using adverbs, yet uses them 7 times in the first paragraph of his rant against them, showing a basic lack of awareness.

King's rant against passive verbs is more interesting. He of course uses the passive in his actual writing. But when I combed through some of his work, it was a tour of the different reasons for using passive. So his avoidance of bad passives is great, and his use of passives is great, but his advice wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.

So. King, with the world's best skill and credentials, gives bad advice on punctuation and grammar. If you can't decide for yourself what is useful or not, you are probably better off ignoring everything.

Added: And if you can think for yourself, you can think about advice from anyone.


----------



## Bayview (Jan 30, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> This, it turns out, is bad advice. King is my model for understandable reading; to me, he is a technical expert for grammar and punctuation. He advises against using adverbs, yet uses them 7 times in the first paragraph of his rant against them, showing a basic lack of awareness.
> 
> King's rant against passive verbs is more interesting. He of course uses the passive in his actual writing. But when I combed through some of his work, it was a tour of the different reasons for using passive. So his avoidance of bad passives is great, and his use of passives is great, but his advice wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.
> 
> ...



I hate to ask, but... when you say "passive verbs", what do you mean?

There's a lot of confusion around "passive voice", which is real (and valuable) grammatical construct, and "passive verbs", which are a muddy and confusing jumble.

Which one are you talking about?


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 30, 2018)

Bayview said:


> I hate to ask, but... when you say "passive verbs", what do you mean?
> 
> There's a lot of confusion around "passive voice", which is real (and valuable) grammatical construct, and "passive verbs", which are a muddy and confusing jumble.
> 
> Which one are you talking about?





> Messrs. Strunk and White don't speculate as to why so many writers are attracted to passive verbs. King, _On Writing_



A muddle indeed. I started that contribution with King, and I think he muddles them, so I had to stay with that muddle. I was just reading Wikipedia trying to stumble their way through it.

But for me, the muddle is unimportant -- whatever problems and advantages the passive has, they're exactly the same whether it is passive sentence or a passive construction within a sentence (as above). 

The term "passive voice" doesn't seem useful for talking to writers. In addition to unfamiliarity, _voice _has a different meaning in writing.

From Wikipedia:



> English allows a number of *passive constructions*
> 
> A sentence featuring the *passive voice* is sometimes called a *passive sentence*, and a verb phrase in passive voice is sometimes called a *passive verb*.
> 
> Use of the *passive* in English varies with writing style and field.


----------



## Bayview (Jan 30, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> A muddle indeed. I started that contribution with King, and I think he muddles them, so I had to stay with that muddle. I was just reading Wikipedia trying to stumble their way through it.
> 
> But for me, the muddle is unimportant -- whatever problems and advantages the passive has, they're exactly the same whether it is passive sentence or a passive construction within a sentence (as above).
> 
> ...



The problem with the phrase "passive verb" is that some people stumble across the idea and start thinking that it's the verbs itself that are the problem. Not the grammatical way in which they're used, but the actual verb. So we see lists of verbs to avoid because they're "passive", we see websites advocating that authors go through and change every use of the word "was" in their MS to something more "active", etc., and all of that is based on a nonsensical misinterpretation of the phrase "passive verb".

It's like all the people advocating for "show, don't tell" who can't actually agree what either "show" or "tell" look like!

And then once we've actually got people understanding what "passive voice" or "tell" means, we have to explain to them that both are perfectly useful tools for our writing...

(Definitely don't look at Strunk and White for an explanation of passive voice - it's one of the areas in which they're notoriously not just muddled, but flat-out wrong.)


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 30, 2018)

If someone here couldn't evaluate advice,


we would try to minimize bad advice on this website.
The advice would sound like a rote rule -- never use adverbs, don't use them as much as you currently do, one adverb per page.
We would probably suggest accepting advice from authorities and authors like King who has "been-there-and-done-that". Or advise not accepting advice at all.
If someone could evaluate advice, that would be very different. Right?


We could  debate about advice, giving them the opportunity to evaluate the competing positions. Perhaps they could even develop a deeper understanding.
We could say, "perhaps you should try this" and they could try it. We could say, "You must do this", but they would still take it as advice just to try.


----------



## Bayview (Jan 30, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> If someone here couldn't evaluate advice,
> 
> 
> we would try to minimize bad advice on this website.
> ...



Well, I think it makes the "discussion" less confrontational and less polarizing if we _start_ with "perhaps you should try this" or whatever.

And maybe things would stay on track better if we all remember, as Ursula points out, that the "rules" are going to change from piece to piece and have to be re-determined each time. Like, instead of saying "never use adverbs" we could say "I felt like this was a bit muddied and not quite as zippy as it might have been. I wonder if it's the adverbs that are tripping me up. Do you think it might read more smoothly if you said "sprinted" instead of "ran quickly" in the first line, and made some other changes like that throughout?"

Or, alternatively:

"I feel like the adverbs really added something to this piece. I know some people say they shouldn't be used, but I found them really effective here. They really suit the character - of _course_ Bernice would sigh _dramatically_, right?"


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 31, 2018)

Bayview said:


> Well, I think it makes the "discussion" less confrontational and less polarizing if we _start_ with "perhaps you should try this" or whatever.
> 
> And maybe things would stay on track better if we all remember, as Ursula points out, that the "rules" are going to change from piece to piece and have to be re-determined each time. Like, instead of saying "never use adverbs" we could say "I felt like this was a bit muddied and not quite as zippy as it might have been. I wonder if it's the adverbs that are tripping me up. Do you think it might read more smoothly if you said "sprinted" instead of "ran quickly" in the first line, and made some other changes like that throughout?"
> 
> ...



Right, but . . . *You are allowed no more than two or three [exclamation marks] per 100,000 words of prose.* If you hedge that and say maybe it's true, or maybe it doesn't always apply, I'm not sure what people are supposed to do with that hedged advice. Not follow it? Follow it?

You helped me realize, what I want is that underlying understanding. I tried to do that on the long-sentence thread.


----------



## Bayview (Jan 31, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> Right, but . . . *You are allowed no more than two or three [exclamation marks] per 100,000 words of prose.* If you hedge that and say maybe it's true, or maybe it doesn't always apply, I'm not sure what people are supposed to do with that hedged advice. Not follow it? Follow it?
> 
> You helped me realize, what I want is that underlying understanding. I tried to do that on the long-sentence thread.



That's a stupid rule. People should ignore it.

If the rule was "make sure you're not over-using exclamation marks", I could get behind it. I know, it's less immediately useful, because it's subjective and some people will deny they're over-using exclamation marks even when you or I feel they _are_ overusing them, but I think it's more productive, long-term, to acknowledge the subjectivity and the muddiness of the writing world than it is to pretend that things are black-and-white.

Like, a dietitian would hopefully never say "people should limit themselves to 1500 calories of food a day." Because _some_ people should eat less than that, and some people should eat more than that (because of body type, current weight, target weight, exercise level, nutritional demands/peculiarities, etc. etc.). It would be _clear_ if dietitians told us we should all eat 1500 calories per day, but it wouldn't be good dietitian-ing.

Maybe the exclamation mark thing could rephrased as "exclamation marks should be used as spice, not as the full meal" and then different authors could decide how spicy they want their work to be?


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 31, 2018)

Well, we could give the advice: Use exclamations when you think they're right. That's basically the advice I would give. But the person who made that rule was thinking that wasn't working -- that authors he was reading were using too many exclamation marks.

For this particular rule, we can imagine him tearing his hair out over how often authors like Crichton and King were using exclamation marks. And then he is giving advice that works for him, though presumably few other readers. Or he didn't realize how often ordinary authors use exclamation marks.


----------



## Bayview (Jan 31, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> Well, we could give the advice: Use exclamations when you think they're right. That's basically the advice I would give. But the person who made that rule was thinking that wasn't working -- that authors he was reading were using too many exclamation marks.
> 
> For this particular rule, we can imagine him tearing his hair out over how often authors like Crichton and King were using exclamation marks. And then he is giving advice that works for him, though presumably few other readers. Or he didn't realize how often ordinary authors use exclamation marks.



Well, yeah, I think that's a reasonable speculation about how the rule got made, but... are we still talking about whether rules for writing are a good idea? Because I think the scenario you give is a clear demonstration of why rules are a bad idea. They tend to be one writer trying to impose his style and preferences on other writers without good reason.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 31, 2018)

Well, but that was also a bad rule. What about . . .  there is a double-dash to enclose extraneous information, and a single dash used for different purposes. I have the "rule" that you shouldn't have two single dashes in the same sentence (because that will look like a double dash) and for the same reason never have three dashes (too much confusion).

Not many people make that mistake, so it isn't an extraordinarily useful rule to mention. But it works really well. If you find yourself doing that, you certainly should check the sentence. And if the sentence seems okay to you, you should _still _probably change it, because some reader will get confused and the problem isn't difficult to write around.

There's still one exception that I know of, so it isn't a 100% rule (if there is such a thing). But it comes really close.


----------



## Bayview (Jan 31, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> Well, but that was also a bad rule. What about . . .  there is a double-dash to enclose extraneous information, and a single dash used for different purposes. I have the "rule" that you shouldn't have two single dashes in the same sentence (because that will look like a double dash) and for the same reason never have three dashes (too much confusion).
> 
> Not many people make that mistake, so it isn't an extraordinarily useful rule to mention. But it works really well. If you find yourself doing that, you certainly should check the sentence. And if the sentence seems okay to you, you should _still _probably change it, because some reader will get confused and the problem isn't difficult to write around.
> 
> There's still one exception that I know of, so it isn't a 100% rule (if there is such a thing). But it comes really close.



I think grammatical/formatting issues like that can come to being "rules", but even then, there are some really successful authors who use totally non-standard grammar and formatting, so...?

For me, the rule is "do what works". Beyond that? Nothing.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 1, 2018)

Bayview said:


> I think grammatical/formatting issues like that can come to being "rules", but even then, there are some really successful authors who use totally non-standard grammar and formatting, so...?
> 
> For me, the rule is "do what works". Beyond that? Nothing.



I don't understand what you are saying. Clarify? I want to react to what you are saying but I'm not sure what it is.

Some rules are so bad, and given so authoritatively, and actually an impediment to good writing, so it is easy not to like rules (or "rules", or principles, or advice).

But no advice at all? Everyone tries to do what works well, the question is if we can give any advice to help that along.

Someone told me that two character names should not begin with the same letter. It's not too hard to figure out an underlying principle. Even if the advice had been wrong, it would have cost me nothing to follow it. And if I'm not bothered by two names starting with the same letter, maybe my readers are.

I thought an exception would be two Siamese Twins, so I gave them both names beginning with A. Then I couldn't keep them straight and renamed one of them Zelda.

So, all that ultimately matters is for my book to be as good as it can be, and maybe I would have sooner or later learned that "rule" by myself, but I'm glad I read it.


----------



## Bayview (Feb 1, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> I don't understand what you are saying. Clarify? I want to react to what you are saying but I'm not sure what it is.
> 
> Some rules are so bad, and given so authoritatively, and actually an impediment to good writing, so it is easy not to like rules (or "rules", or principles, or advice).
> 
> ...



Well, yeah, honestly, I don't think people _should_ be giving advice, most of the time. I think there's an air of authority around the word "advice" that rarely works for me. 

I mean, if some top author (who writes work I love) wants to give me advice on my writing, I'd be happy to listen to it. They've reached a destination and can give me some valuable insight about how to get where they are. A top editor, one who's helped other authors produce work I really enjoy? Bring on the advice. But someone who's just a fellow traveller? Someone, say, on an internet writers' forum?

They can offer feedback, or suggestions, or pose questions. But I don't think they have the credentials to be offering "advice", at least the way I interpret the word.

I think that even if the advice is sound, which is pretty hard to ever be sure of, there are better ways for us to get that information. Like, for your letters example, someone could tell you the "rule" that no character names should ever begin with the same letter. But then you could look at all the wonderfully written stories that _do_ have names that start with the same letter, and you'd be tempted to dismiss the rule, and then also dismiss the feedback.

And if the feedback was just based on the person going through your piece scanning for rule-violations, I agree that it _should _be dismissed.

But possibly the feedback actually meant "I kept getting your characters confused as I read. I think it's partly because their names were too similar."

Someone getting your characters confused, for whatever reason, is valuable feedback that you shouldn't ignore. If you get it from more than one early reader, you probably have an issue with your piece and you need to do something about it, whether it's changing names or doing something else.

So that's why I say the only rule I like is "do what works". If using names with the same first letter works in your piece, then do it. If it doesn't work, don't do it. It would be nice if we could get things more precise, but I really don't think we can.

Bringing it back to the OP, "There are “secrets” to making a story work — but they apply only to that particular writer and that particular story."


----------



## sas (Feb 1, 2018)

That's just semantics: advice, suggestions, feedback. Same things.


----------



## Bayview (Feb 1, 2018)

sas said:


> That's just semantics: advice, suggestions, feedback. Same things.



Oh. Huh. I get totally different vibes from each one. I mean, sure, the denotations are similar, but the connotations, to me, are quite different.

Like, someone could give advice without having ever read anything someone had written, couldn't they? But they couldn't give feedback without having read some work...

ETA: And that's significant, to me, because I think we should stay focused on the individual piece at hand. I don't think we should try to give over-arching suggestions that apply to more than what we're reading right then. Because I agree with what Le Guin said about each piece having its own demands and secrets that need to be addressed just for that one work.


----------



## sas (Feb 1, 2018)

Let's see...

My response to someone's work might be: pick which is different...

1. My advice would be to eliminate redundancy (or, whatever)

2. My suggestion would be to eliminate redundancy

3. My feedback is to eliminate redundancy


hmmm.

For those with thin skin, my advice is to use #2 or #3.
Use #1 responding to me, as I don't mind directness. 

.


----------



## Bayview (Feb 1, 2018)

sas said:


> Let's see...
> 
> My response to someone's work might be: pick which is different...
> 
> ...



Yeah, in that context, I think you're using the words to mean the same thing. But there are obviously other contexts in which the words have different meanings, right?

(I'm a member of the "there's no such thing as a true synonym" school, so my _advice_, were I to give it, would be that we should always look for connotations and shades of meaning in words. My _feedback_ would be that you're using the words in a context that allows them to be used interchangeably so I think all the words work reasonably well in your example. My _suggestion_ would be to think of other contexts in which the words would _not_​ be interchangeable.)


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 1, 2018)

Bayview said:


> Someone getting your characters confused, for whatever reason, is valuable feedback that you shouldn't ignore. If you get it from more than one early reader, you probably have an issue with your piece and you need to do something about it, whether it's changing names or doing something else.
> 
> So that's why I say the only rule I like is "do what works". If using names with the same first letter works in your piece, then do it. If it doesn't work, don't do it. It would be nice if we could get things more precise, but I really don't think we can.
> 
> Bringing it back to the OP, "There are “secrets” to making a story work — but they apply only to that particular writer and that particular story."



I am not sure how this actually works. If I was giving feedback on someone's story and I got two characters confused, I would probably assume it was my fault. If I mentioned that I got them confused, the writer probably would think it's my fault but think _it costs me nothing_ and change one name. But then the author might make the same mistake the next story (if this really is a mistake).

Don't we might hope the author would learn something from this error that applies to the next story? Which is to say, get better at writing? This means something general that transcends the particular story.

Btw, what is the wonderfully written story with (main) characters starting with the same letter? That surprises me. Or were you being hypothetical?


----------



## Bayview (Feb 1, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> I am not sure how this actually works. If I was giving feedback on someone's story and I got two characters confused, I would probably assume it was my fault. If I mentioned that I got them confused, the writer probably would think it's my fault but think _it costs me nothing_ and change one name. But then the author might make the same mistake the next story (if this really is a mistake).
> 
> Don't we might hope the author would learn something from this error that applies to the next story? Which is to say, get better at writing? This means something general that transcends the particular story.
> 
> Btw, what is the wonderfully written story with (main) characters starting with the same letter? That surprises me. Or were you being hypothetical?



Well, any book with more than 26 characters is going to have some duplication, right? So all of the big sprawling epics are going to have characters with names that start with the same letters. Catelyn and Cersei, Jaime and Jorah and Joffrey in Game of Thrones (not to mention the characters with the _exact same_ first names),  Gandalf and Gollum and Galadriel and Gimli, Bilbo and Boramir, Samwise and Sauron, Eowyn and Eomer, etc. in Lord of the Rings. Harry, Hermione, Hedwig, and possibly others in Harry Potter. Andrei and Anatole and Alexander and Anna in War and Peace (where I _did_ find the characters confusing, but I don't think because of their names).

In shorter works? Pride and Prejudice has Charlotte and Caroline, Sherlock Holmes has Mary and Molly and Moriarty, Of Mice and Men has Curley and Crooks and Carlson and Candy. To Kill a Mockingbird has Mayella and Maudie. 

I don't have a mental list of books with characters with names starting with the first letter, but I have no doubt there are a lot more of them out there since I came up with these pretty easily.

So, yes, I would hope that authors would continue to get better at writing, but I'd hope they could do so by getting better at figuring out what works and what doesn't _in a given piece._ I've written over thirty novels and I still have to approach each one as an individual experience. It'd be great if there was a secret, but... I sure haven't found it yet.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 1, 2018)

Micky and Minnie. If it hadn't been for the red shorts and polka dot dress I would have been lost...

But, seriously, character confusion in the reader's mind is almost always the fault of the writer and it has far more to do with creating unique characters than with what we name them. Voice, mannerisms, actions, attitudes and behaviors are what identify characters to readers IMO. Think about the long stretches of conversations we've all read where two or more characters are talking and the author doesn't use dialogue tags. How do we keep the characters straight? We can do that because the author has give each character a unique voice which the reader can easily identify, and she has defined that character well enough to fix that personality in the reader's mind.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 1, 2018)

Bayview said:


> So, yes, I would hope that authors would continue to get better at writing, but I'd hope they could do so by getting better at figuring out what works and what doesn't _in a given piece._ I've written over thirty novels and I still have to approach each one as an individual experience. It'd be great if there was a secret, but... I sure haven't found it yet.




We all know you've learned something from writing those thirty novels, something which transcends them and allows you to be better at writing your novel.

You aren't necessarily conscious of what you have learned. If you tried to put that learning into words, would that help you? I think so, but I don't have a convincing argument. If you could accurately turn that learning into advice, would that help others? Depends on how accurate you are; depends on what the other person does with it. If you had gotten advice about character names, would you have learned faster and better? Yes, probably, but again it's hard to be convincing.

I should tell three stories, but I will tell one. The Harry and Hermione example was really good. I started thinking more about the issue. Now I am eager to revisit a character-confusion in one of my old stories. So, while that was supposed to be just an example, for me it was exactly what such a discussion can be -- improving my conscious awareness of the principles of writing.

1. There is a potential problem with readers confusing characters.
2. This problem can be made worse by similar names or avoided by dissimilar names.
3. The first letter has some prominance.
I will add:
4.there is no issue when the name itself resolves the problem. Sleepy vs. Sneezy. Harry is male.


----------

