# Do we really know the rules of good writing?



## AdrianBraysy (Jul 23, 2019)

The more I read about how to write fiction, the more I have become convinced that there are no rules. Everyone seems to disagree with everyone else. 

Syd Field claims that the archetypal story structure takes place in three acts, with two plot points and a midpoint. 

McKee claims that a story can have as many acts as you want it to have.

John Truby doesn't even believe in act divisions.

Some say that a story should have a logical progression/cause-effect chain. But along come all the modernist and post-modern experimental authors, breaking all those rules in one way or another. Then came the surrealists, who used the contrast between logical and illogical cause-effect chains to their advantage.

Some say that the main character must change for the story to be good. But honestly, plenty of good stories have flat characters, who change the world around them more than themselves.

So what do we really know? It seems to me, what you think of as good fiction, has much more to do with the school of thought you belong to. I happen to enjoy books like The Naked Lunch, which according to many standards is a terrible book with no logic and is damn near incomprehensible. Still, I happen to like it.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 23, 2019)

For me I find that I tend to skirt all of the rules of writing and just tell the story in the best way I know how. If i were to post a link to one of my Fanfiction there would be people who hate it, some who love it and other's who are indifferent. These reactions could be for any number of reasons. For me good fiction tells a story. It doesn't have to have good grammar or make any sense as long as it set's out to do what it was meant to do.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 23, 2019)

The only useful rules of writing are the ones that work for you as an individual writer. Everything else is just white noise.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 23, 2019)

'Rules of writing' exist for two reasons:

1. To give beginning writers some idea of what has worked for others in the past. Kinda like, "Don't check the level of gasoline in a tank with a match."

2. So people like Syd Field and John Truby can sell books and teach classes.

Good writers break the rules with a plan. Bad writers break them because they are lazy.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 23, 2019)

> Good writers break the rules with a plan. Bad writers break them because they are lazy.



Almost, I would say good writers have their own reasons for what they do/write. Writers who do what they do because someone else has told them it is right may be competent, but probably lack something that takes them beyond that. Rules are usually based on some sort of misconception, such as that language needs to be fixed so it always carries the same meaning. Language is infinitely malleable, but just because it has changed some the old ways do not become unintelligible; we don't talk like Shakespeare any more, but it still makes sense. There are of course other misconceptions, such as 'This worked for me so it is the way to do it'. No it isn't, it *a* way to do it, in your circumstances.



> useful rules of writing are the ones that work for you


Much more like, though I am still iffy about 'Rules'. Do things deliberately, because they suit you and achieve something you want to achieve.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 23, 2019)

Terry D said:


> 'Rules of writing' exist for two reasons:
> 
> 1. To give beginning writers some idea of what has worked for others in the past. Kinda like, "Don't check the level of gasoline in a tank with a match."
> 
> ...



As the old saying go's rules are meant to be broken. But in all seriousness I've skirted the rules plenty of times to great effect. I've used both first person and third person in the same story sometimes in the same paragraph depending on what is going on, and it worked for that story. I personally see rules as more of guidelines because they can always change at a moments notice.


----------



## escorial (Jul 23, 2019)

You can break all the rules and make your own then break them too....


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 23, 2019)

I have been struck by how much we don't know about writing. For example, starts, middles, and ends.

Rules? It's tools, and goals, and how to achieve those goals. Understanding. We can find rules that usually should be followed, but those usually aren't the point.

And, in my opinion, we have improved a lot over the years.

Readers vary a lot, so finished projects are going to look different. That's the same in art and music and architecture and etc.


----------



## JohnCalliganWrites (Jul 23, 2019)

I think stories have goals. Everything is a technique, and every technique is done for a reason. The author wants a certain point of view. They want to elicit emotions from the reader. They want their writing to be clear, and for it not to bore or frustrate the reader. There are many common problems in many manuscripts that can be pointed out:

Failure to maximize the point of view.

The boring use of exposition, usually by having it in the wrong place.

On the nose dialog and dialog designed to deliver exposition to the reader.

Chapters that seem pointless because of their disconnection from an important plot or a lack of conflict.

Changes in setting, such as the appearance of a new thing, or the loss of something important, happening too quickly in the prose for readers to jive with it.

When I critique, I try really hard to only give advice on things that I am sure about. That is a filter word. This is on the nose. There is no conflict in this chapter. This sentence sounds awkward.

What I try to stay away from is critiquing anything written in a style I'm not familiar with. If something sounds stylish, but it isn't my bag, it is important to be humble and accept that. Likewise, sometimes things are perfectly conventional in published books, even if I don't think they are tasteful.

He slammed the door. Walked across the street. Picked up the cat and pet it.

Some people think the above bit is tasteless. Other people think it is perfectly conventional. Depends on what you like. Some critics are either egotistical and will bitch about things that aren't their taste. Others don't even know when something is conventional, because they don't read that sort of thing. Both will be inclined to give you opinions on it that won't serve the voice of the writing because they just wish you were different.

Sometimes critics are judging every individual sentence against their Platonic ideal for that sentence, rather than taking in the section and judging it against its goal of being clear, entertaining, and publishable. This makes it exceedingly hard to take critique from that sort of person if they just don't like your writing.

If a piece of writing has the goal of being clear, in a certain style, and eliciting emotion, then advice can be customized toward that end with the help of the critic if they know how to give that sort of advice. Ideally, a critique partner could be able to give this kind of advice, even for something they don't like, by helping it be true to itself rather than true to the taste of the critic. Alternately, some people have the authority to tell a writer to simply bring a piece in line with their taste, because they are an editor for a publication or something. That's different, and not what I'm talking about.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 23, 2019)

Thought I might add something pithy here, but it looks like everyone else has pretty well covered everything I'd thought to mention. Lots of really good points here. 

Write what works best for you and the story. There are tons of styles. What works really well for one might not work for another--unless a lot of thought and effort is put into it. All of the styles have a wealth of tools, history, purpose, charm even, and they all have something to offer any project, I think. That doesn't mean it's wise to put a flamboyant Picasso nude in a period French colonial living room--without putting a lot of thought into why you're doing it. Yup, rules can be bent or broken all day long, but that doesn't meant the end result has great _feng shui._


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 24, 2019)

AdrianBraysy said:


> The more I read about how to write fiction, the more I have become convinced that there are no rules. Everyone seems to disagree with everyone else.
> 
> Syd Field claims that the archetypal story structure takes place in three acts, with two plot points and a midpoint.
> 
> ...





Did any of those guys publish in THIS century?

If you wanna write for the modern market, then you gotta look at modern material.

But you are missing the point of the debates: It's not that there are NO rules, there's just many ways to do it.
When I get writing advice, I like to look at the source before I consider it gospel.
And sometimes learning a different way to write is a good thing.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 24, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> When I get writing advice, I like to look at the source before I consider it gospel.



A salient point everyone would do well to keep in mind when getting free advice on fora like this.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 24, 2019)

I wanted to mention that if Adrian likes The Naked Lunch, it did something right. Whether he can figure out what's right is a different issue.



Ralph Rotten said:


> When I get writing advice, I like to look at the source before I consider it gospel.



I can't think of anyone's advice I would treat as gospel. Isn't it mostly a lot of copying? Like King trying to be the one thousandth person to criticize adverbs _and _giving bad advice.

Not to mention having perfect faith in your own understanding of what someone else said.

To me, the question is: When I follow the advice, or copy the technique, do I like my writing better? If I do, then the source doesn't matter to me. If I don't, then the advice is useless to me.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 24, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> I wanted to mention that if Adrian likes The Naked Lunch, it did something right. Whether he can figure out what's right is a different issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So spake the fountain of poor advice.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 24, 2019)

JohnCalliganWrites said:


> That is a filter word.



I question that. If the author has firmly established that the narration is the focal character's thoughts, then there is rarely any need to say the narration is the character's thoughts.

John heard the train coming.
The train was coming.

But when the author hasn't done that, and I am guessing most authors don't, then the "filter" could be useful for clarity.


There's also a slightly different emphasis -- is the point that the train is coming or that John hears the train coming? I'm not sure how often that's relevant, but it was really relevant in one place I used a "filter."

And of course filtering can be a mistake too, when the author should be trusting the reader to get it right. I am happy to hear your ideas on this topic.


----------



## JohnCalliganWrites (Jul 24, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> I question that. If the author has firmly established that the narration is the focal character's thoughts, then there is rarely any need to say the narration is the character's thoughts.
> 
> John heard the train coming.
> The train was coming.
> ...



It is my opinion that most of the fiction that I have read in the last couple of years, which had just been traditionally published by new writers, is written in a very close, limited third person perspective, or a first person perspective. In either, all of the narration is the character's thoughts. Everything described is what the character is looking at, right then, and any breech of that isn't stylish. So, if I were critiquing something that I knew was for the modern traditional publishing market, and I asked them if it was close limited third person (and they would then say yes, almost certainly) then I would flag all the filter words.

On the other hand, if it was a self published novel and they were going to use "Terry Goodkind" or "Dungeons and Dragons" as advertising keywords, then it wouldn't matter.

Edit: Personally, I'm against filter words (I saw, I heard, I felt, I thought, I noticed...ect) because a hundred thousand word book could probably be stripped down to 90k just by cutting them. Even if I wasn't committed to a certain style for my own writing that omits them, I'd still have it out for them because they don't add anything worth the extra weight.


----------



## JohnCalliganWrites (Jul 24, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Did any of those guys publish in THIS century?
> 
> If you wanna write for the modern market, then you gotta look at modern material.
> 
> ...



I think Truby is pretty cutting edge, and a lot of screenwriters working now use his method. I wouldn't buy the hype and believe that everything famous is following his method, but a lot of people working are.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 24, 2019)

Terry D said:


> So spake the fountain of poor advice.



How is this poor advice? To me it's sound advice given through a voice of experience in this area.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 24, 2019)

Everyone seems to be talking about things like 'advice', feel' and such, but rules are a different class. Rules don't say, 'Make sure it fits the genre', or 'Does it feel right to you?'. Rules start with phrases like 'You must never...', or 'You must always...'
For example, you must always be consistent with tense, "He saw the cat. He pets the cat." is not wrong because it is short sentences and does not have the right 'feel'; it is wrong because it is past in the first sentence, present in the second, the past of 'pets' is 'petted', the present of 'saw' is 'sees'. You must make them match. 
That is a rule and it is rubbish, mixing them up like that does give a particular 'voice' to the narrator which gives clues to things like his nationality, class and education, it shows it is him, not someone else who always gets it 'Right'. If it is done deliberately for that effect it is the right thing to do and the rule is rubbish. If, on the other hand, you simply fill your writing with adverbs and start sentences with conjunctions without any particular aim or deliberation, then you are probably a poor writer, though even then you could redeem yourself in my eyes by something like vivid and original analogies and metaphors.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 24, 2019)

I think Emma made a very good point when she said this:
"Not to mention having perfect faith in your own understanding of what someone else said."

One of the biggest issues I see with the rules is that very often writers do not understand them. Stephen King's advice on* killing your darlings* is easily one of the most misunderstood writing adages of all. It is not wrong or invalid, but misunderstood.

But before anyone thinks I'm calling them stupid, I am not.
The reason for misunderstanding is often that the writer simply has not reached the point where they can grasp some of these philosophies.

In aviation there is something known as *The Hundred Hour Pilot*.
Essentially, once a pilot gets his pilot's licence, they tend to think they know it all.
But sometime after they pass a hundred hours, and have been flying solo a while, they have an epiphany, and realize just how much they DON'T know.

This is why I frequently say "The first 200,000 words are just practice."
Because that's roughly how long it takes for a new writer to begin wrapping their head around these philosophies.
And really that what's these '_rules_' are; they are philosophies of writing.


----------



## AdrianBraysy (Jul 24, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I think Emma made a very good point when she said this:
> "Not to mention having perfect faith in your own understanding of what someone else said."
> 
> One of the biggest issues I see with the rules is that very often writers do not understand them. Stephen King's advice on* killing your darlings* is easily one of the most misunderstood writing adages of all. It is not wrong or invalid, but misunderstood.
> ...



This is why I like Dean Wesley Smith in terms of writing advice. He seems extremely self-aware that his method is just his method, not the end all be all. The problem I see with a lot of writing advice, is that they create the so called "paralysis by analysis". We want our writing to perfectly follow a particular paradigm (I MUST have five acts. I MUST have two characters with opposing needs and desires like the film Collateral, and they MUST put up a facade at the start of the novel and it MUST begin to crack at the midpoint, and the character arc MUST conform to the standards of a shakespearean tragedy. Because as we know, the midpoint is a supposed magical moment. Nevermind that it began just as a tool to make long second acts less of a drag.)

But then we realise: "So I'm writing this story which fits perfectly into a box. It hits all of the notes, just like it is supposed to. Problem is, it's boring and unoriginal. Meanwhile, that story I just had fun with, which I at first thought was kinda stupid, is actually way more fun and enjoyable to me"


----------



## JohnCalliganWrites (Jul 25, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I think Emma made a very good point when she said this:
> "Not to mention having perfect faith in your own understanding of what someone else said."
> 
> One of the biggest issues I see with the rules is that very often writers do not understand them. Stephen King's advice on* killing your darlings* is easily one of the most misunderstood writing adages of all. It is not wrong or invalid, but misunderstood.
> ...



Good. I've written and polished two novels and two novellas. With my short stories, it's just over 200k words. I'm outlining a new novel. Maybe it won't be as bad!!! :-k


----------



## BornForBurning (Jul 25, 2019)

If I was to put it very abstractly I would say good storytelling is circles within circles intersecting other circles. That's how I visualize it in my brain. Setup-payoff structure that's been infused with character and emotion.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 25, 2019)

> Stephen King's advice on killing your darlings


I think William Faulkner said it before him, and it might even be older than that.



> And really that what's these 'rules' are; they are philosophies of writing.


 That is what I was saying, people are talking about things which are not rules, but rules do exist. They were formulated by prescriptive grammarians, mostly in the 1800's and early 1900's. and are based on misconceptions such as 'Language should be stable and consistent', or 'Conjunctions join things together so they can never be used to start something like a sentence.', or 'Double negatives are a nonsense that say the opposite of what was meant and should never be used'.  

I think it is generally accepted nowadays that grammar should be descriptive rather than prescriptive, but they were still teaching these 'hard and fast rules' when I was in school in the 1950's


----------



## Jim Creeper (Jul 26, 2019)

Definitely agree that in horror/science fiction there are no rules, aside from grammatical of course. But all genres generally have an "archetype" and I wouldn't stray too far from them if I were looking to publish. I do love a writer who deliberately "breaks the rules" though, especially when the story is unique (an original plot). The only rules I follow are grammatical.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 26, 2019)

In writing, what works...works.

And I agree with Olly, there are *rules* of grammar and syntax, but beyond that there are only philosophies of writing.
You just have to walk a mile in a writer's shoes to truly understand some of these concepts. 



* [sigh] I had to spellcheck the word *grammar*. I always thought it was spelled -er.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 26, 2019)

A lot of this is semantics: A “writing rule” is just an idea somebody had that was proven to work sufficiently that the promoters of whatever this “rule” said, decided they could call it such and get away with it. We see this stuff constantly in real life, particularly in the self-help industry. 

Personally I see a lot of parallels between Truby, Dwight Swain, etc and anything you’ll find on the “how to win friends...” shelf and I’m not sure why we give such people so much trust. Maybe it’ll help, but there’s no reason to think Truby has some kind of insider knowledge. Don’t remember seeing any of these guys on any bestseller lists for fiction they wrote.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 26, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> A lot of this is semantics: A “writing rule” is just an idea somebody had that was proven to work sufficiently that the promoters of whatever this “rule” said, decided they could call it such and get away with it. We see this stuff constantly in real life, particularly in the self-help industry.
> 
> Personally I see a lot of parallels between Truby, Dwight Swain, etc and anything you’ll find on the “how to win friends...” shelf and I’m not sure why we give such people so much trust. Maybe it’ll help, but there’s no reason to think Truby has some kind of insider knowledge. Don’t remember seeing any of these guys on any bestseller lists for fiction they wrote.


E L JAMES = BESTSELLER = "BESTSELLER" DON'T MEAN "GOOD"

I wouldn't follow her writing advice. Good advice can come from non-bestseller sources. Good advice is good advice, no matter where you get it from. I'd rather take good advice from a hobo than bad advice from a bestseller who just happened to strike it rich. Some people get published at all or make bestseller based on pretty much dumb luck and/or being/knowing their audience. The stars were aligned, so to speak. We can work on our craft and better understanding our intended publishers and audience, but we can't control for dumb luck (or the chaos/butterfly effect, if you'd rather). System's too big to properly predict.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 26, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> E L JAMES = BESTSELLER = "BESTSELLER" DON'T MEAN "GOOD"
> 
> I wouldn't follow her writing advice. Good advice can come from non-bestseller sources. Good advice is good advice, no matter where you get it from. I'd rather take good advice from a hobo than bad advice from a bestseller who just happened to strike it rich. Some people get published at all or make bestseller based on pretty much dumb luck and/or being/knowing their audience. The stars were aligned, so to speak. We can work on our craft and better understanding our intended publishers and audience, but we can't control for dumb luck (or the chaos/butterfly effect, if you'd rather). System's too big to properly predict.



So how do you know if the advice is good or not?


----------



## JohnCalliganWrites (Jul 26, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> So how do you know if the advice is good or not?



Thats the money question.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 26, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> So how do you know if the advice is good or not?



You look at how well the person follows their own advice, whether or not you like that person's style of writing (might not be a fit for you or your genre). You can try to implement what sounds doable or good, and see if doing so improves your writing any. If it doesn't improve anything, stop doing it. 

Writing is like anything else we do--from sex to driving. You don't wander around, taking advice from absolutely anyone--even if they're famous in their field, they're not _you._ What's doable for that person, might not be doable for you. I'm not going to win any Indy 500's in my beat up Corolla, no matter how much advice I take. I can read men's magazines and get tips from Peter North, but I'm not going change my anatomy to make full use of said advice. Doesn't mean I can't take _anything_ away from this advice. After awhile in said field, it's expected that I'll learn what works for me, what doesn't, what I  can apply, and what I can't. Experience in the field is the biggest thing I look for in an adviser, but I'm also grading advice by my personal experience in the field, also.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 26, 2019)

I hate it when this topic comes up. I've never read anyone yet who recommends rigidly following 'rules' or who even agrees that there are such things as incontrovertible rules. Well, that's not precisely true. We had a member here a while back who was very much a stickler for rules laid out by a writing teacher he followed. That didn't work out too well for him.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 26, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> So how do you know if the advice is good or not?



Common sense, or a bit more long winded; do you think the advice will make the way you say things express what you want to say any better? That is a matter of judgement, but that is point writers have to reach sometime.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 26, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> You look at how well the person follows their own advice, whether or not you like that person's style of writing (might not be a fit for you or your genre). You can try to implement what sounds doable or good, and see if doing so improves your writing any. If it doesn't improve anything, stop doing it.
> 
> Writing is like anything else we do--from sex to driving. You don't wander around, taking advice from absolutely anyone--even if they're famous in their field, they're not _you._ What's doable for that person, might not be doable for you. I'm not going to win any Indy 500's in my beat up Corolla, no matter how much advice I take. I can read men's magazines and get tips from Peter North, but I'm not going change my anatomy to make full use of said advice. Doesn't mean I can't take _anything_ away from this advice. After awhile in said field, it's expected that I'll learn what works for me, what doesn't, what I  can apply, and what I can't. Experience in the field is the biggest thing I look for in an adviser, but I'm also grading advice by my personal experience in the field, also.



Taking advice that “sounds right” is a form of confirmation bias - You are cherry picking what “sounds doable or good”, and that’s potentially problematic. 

Your comment that you would consider advice from a hobo at the same level as a bestselling author is either ill-conceived hubris or it’s idiotic, sorry. A bestselling author is almost always an expert in the field of writing.

Yes I know EL James exists. And no, I don’t think she’s probably got a lot of good advice. But you are saying that in a field of thousands of authors that the attribute of “bestseller” means little because one or two of those authors maybe aren't great. That is an absurd opinion to hold. Do you think doctors don’t know shit about cancer because every now and again one gets a diagnosis wrong? Get a grip. 

Listen to experts. Nobody is infallible but vet advice according to what is being said AND who is saying it.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 26, 2019)

"How do you know if the advice is good?"

I look at their body of work. They don;t have to be a best-seller to have a valid philosophy. In fact most really good writers make crap wages, simply because that is the nature of writing. Only a few get rich, most are just happy to make a living.

But I look at their reviews, read the previews on their books, maybe even buy a book of theirs.
If I like their style, I study HOW they write. I look at how they introduce characters, how they paint the scene, how they format their dialog...

But I never consider these to be rules. They are philosophies.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 26, 2019)

Jim Creeper said:


> Definitely agree that in horror/science fiction there are no rules, aside from grammatical of course. .



Why do you exempt grammar rules? Many of them are nineteenth century inventions which can be broken with impunity, and doing so can create particular effects.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 26, 2019)

Terry D said:


> I hate it when this topic comes up. I've never read anyone yet who recommends rigidly following 'rules' or who even agrees that there are such things as incontrovertible rules. Well, that's not precisely true. We had a member here a while back who was very much a stickler for rules laid out by a writing teacher he followed. That didn't work out too well for him.


 
Well the one thing that comes to mind for me at least is that rules are a great stepping stone for some and not so good for other's. I as someone who's ADHD had to come up with my own writing rules to follow because i can't really learn in the same way that others do. It worked for me but it won't work for everyone. If writing is art them there are now hard and rigid rules to follow. Everyone must be let free to learn and create at there own pace  in there own way and in there own unique style hence the reason we call it art to begin with.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 26, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> "How do you know if the advice is good?"
> 
> I look at their body of work. They don;t have to be a best-seller to have a valid philosophy. In fact most really good writers make crap wages, simply because that is the nature of writing. Only a few get rich, most are just happy to make a living.
> 
> ...



I’m pretty sure Truby and most of these guys have very minimal bodies of fiction work. As in, basically nothing. Some may not see that as disqualifying. If so, fine. But I have a problem with it.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 26, 2019)

Here’s another way to put it: This forum. If I’m going to “take advice” from somebody here on something important that isn’t part of a consensus, I will absolutely take into account if they are published or not. I don’t take into account Flashes nor LM because they aren’t professional level, nor self-published unless like in Ralph’s and Terry’s case I have either read the work and can vouch for it OR am aware it has sales and isn’t just another Amazon’d vanity project. I don’t generally take advice from unpublished people, even if I might enjoy their opinion, because spewing on a forum, no matter how eloquently, isn’t writing. And yes I absolutely expect people to vet my “advice” in this way...but that’s their business.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 26, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Here’s another way to put it: This forum. If I’m going to “take advice” from somebody here on something important that isn’t part of a consensus, I will absolutely take into account if they are published or not. I don’t take into account Flashes nor LM because they aren’t professional level, nor self-published unless like in Ralph’s and Terry’s case I have either read the work and can vouch for it OR am aware it has sales and isn’t just another Amazon’d vanity project. I don’t generally take advice from unpublished people, even if I might enjoy their opinion, because spewing on a forum, no matter how eloquently, isn’t writing. And yes I absolutely expect people to vet my “advice” in this way...but that’s their business.



You're free to have an opinion, but forum posts are definitely writing. The whole point of writing is to communicate with other people who aren't in front of you and can't hear you. If someone's eloquent in forum posts, you can bet they know how to write. If someone doesn't bother writing coherently in a forum post, you can bet they aren't likely to write the greatest prose either. 

A person who can write an excellent, informative, effective, coherent, lively, emotional, humorous, (insert whatever adjective you choose here) forum post plainly knows how to communicate in writing. They might not know squat about your genre, but that doesn't mean you can't take writing advice from them or that their writing advice is somehow invalid anymore than E L James's advice is going to be good. However, a person can be an excellent, clear writer in your genre even and not have the marketing advice that E L James could give you (I'd take that advice from her, so long as it worked in my genre). Everyone has something to add, and even broken clocks are right twice a day. Use some common sense. Just like when using new cleaners, try unproven advice on something small first because if it works small, it'll probably work big, too, and if it doesn't work small, you'll know better than to use it on a large scale project.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 26, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> You're free to have an opinion, but forum posts are definitely writing. The whole point of writing is to communicate with other people who aren't in front of you and can't hear you. If someone's eloquent in forum posts, you can bet they know how to write. If someone doesn't bother writing coherently in a forum post, you can bet they aren't likely to write the greatest prose either.
> 
> A person who can write an excellent, informative, effective, coherent, lively, emotional, humorous, (insert whatever adjective you choose here) forum post plainly knows how to communicate in writing. They might not know squat about your genre, but that doesn't mean you can't take writing advice from them or that their writing advice is somehow invalid anymore than E L James's advice is going to be good. However, a person can be an excellent, clear writer in your genre even and not have the marketing advice that E L James could give you (I'd take that advice from her, so long as it worked in my genre). Everyone has something to add, and even broken clocks are right twice a day. Use some common sense. Just like when using new cleaners, try unproven advice on something small first because if it works small, it'll probably work big, too, and if it doesn't work small, you'll know better than to use it on a large scale project.



Oh hooey. The only people who say this are people who spend way too much time on forums. 

If forum posts are equivalent to writing I would like to nominate ironpony for the Pulitzer.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 26, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Oh hooey. The only people who say this are people who spend way too much time on forums.
> 
> If forum posts are equivalent to writing I would like to nominate ironpony for the Pulitzer.



Nope, they're just people who put effort into written communication skills. If writing on a forum is unimportant to you, you won't put much effort into it. If communicating isn't important to you, you won't put the effort into it to be clear. 

I've been around long enough to know that if someone doesn't bother with their forum posts, they're not much better in their fiction. By contrast, if someone spends time on their posts, checks their posts for misspellings, poor grammar and is coherent in their forum posts, I may not like their genre fiction, but I'm not going to spend as much time editing their manuscripts or picking nits out of their prose, and I'm certainly not going to have to teach them basic English. People who care about communicating and have enough self respect to spend time on their posts are unlikely to waste my time posting drafts for critique that should be flattered to be called "rough".  

I've never implied that a person's number of posts means anything. Lots of posts doesn't make for a good writer or one with any self respect. Spam's high volume and low quality for a reason.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 26, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Oh hooey. The only people who say this are people who spend way too much time on forums.
> 
> If forum posts are equivalent to writing I would like to nominate ironpony for the Pulitzer.



No the people who say have the wisdom to be open mind and listen out for any good advice they come across. It matter's not what medium they use to give out the good advice. I'm a writer of Fanfiction and original fiction and i can tell when someone is giving me good advice or just trying to get on my nerves with their ineptitude or when they are just being a suck up. Point is good advice can come from anyone, anywhere, and at anytime. It's up to us to see it for what it is and to react accordingly.

P.S. And stop picking on Ironpony. there just starting out with there writing like everyone else here at one point in time. Remember no one starts out as mozart.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 26, 2019)

Yup, confirmation bias it is.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 26, 2019)

> If forum posts are equivalent to writing I would like to nominate ironpony for the Pulitzer.


Now that could be fun, a novel written in forum posts as answers to someone putting plot questions, or how about aliens seeking to invade earth and using plot questions on a forum as a method of finding information on how and what to attack?


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 26, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Yup, confirmation bias it is.



[FONT=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories. That is confirmation bias maybe you mean something else?? The whole point of this thread is to see what advice we can give on the rules of good writing. So far the vast majority of people here seam to agree that there are no hard rules set in stone. It's up to the one doing the writing to create there own rules as they go and to see them through to the end of there project.[/FONT]


----------



## Ken11 (Jul 26, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I think Emma made a very good point when she said this:
> "Not to mention having perfect faith in your own understanding of what someone else said."
> 
> One of the biggest issues I see with the rules is that very often writers do not understand them. Stephen King's advice on* killing your darlings* is easily one of the most misunderstood writing adages of all. It is not wrong or invalid, but misunderstood.
> ...



As for your aeronautical comparison: Are you saying that one ought to first write 200,000 words just to figure out that they can't write?
If so, I don't think the comparison is valid at all.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 26, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Yup, confirmation bias it is.




I say, "Hey, if you see a written communique with sparkling quality X, you can learn how to better write quality X better into your own work by picking apart what makes that written communique so quality X!" 

That's good writing advice because the author is suddenly liberated to pick apart _any_ written communique (even a lowly forum post!) that has the qualities he/she is looking to emulate, and... (gasp!) learn how to write those qualities better! What a novel concept! You want to write really good science fiction? Read really good science fiction, pick it apart, see what makes it work, and emulate that! Want to write better dialogue? Find good dialogue, pick it apart, and emulate that! Want to write sarcasm better? Find people who are really, _really_ sarcastic and _emulate them!_  Make your own writing advice via _reading_ and _studying_ works that worked! Use some common sense! 

A determined writer who's earnestly striving to hone his or her craft can learn from _anything_ to find a better way to write--from Shakespeare to bathroom graffiti. I don't need an artist's permission to take advice from them because, if they're doing their job, their knowledge, experience, effort and even luck are going to shine in their work. I don't have to read their tomes of advice, magazine columns and blog posts to figure out what worked for _me_. Most writers don't take their own advice 100% of the time anyway. This doesn't render purposeful advice worthless, mind you, it just means that I'm not limited to only using advice I was expressly given (and having to determine what's going to work or not through vast labor, trial and error). 

Taking "advice" like this that wasn't written into an advice book gives the learning party assurance that the advice is going to work because he/she's already seen it working in the correct circumstance (in a similar work to the one the author is writing--not some advice column). This sort of learning is more like "field experience" than textbook learning. It requires more of the author, but if said author is driven enough to dissect things that worked, so much more unintentional "advice" can be suddenly gleaned from freely available sources. 

I didn't say "Voluminous amounts of shit writing make you a better writer!" because all a huge volume of shit writing is going to do for you is wear out your keyboard, get you carpal tunnel syndrome, and make you a very _experienced_ shitty author that other, _wiser_ authors can look at and learn from! 




But you got off _such_ a sick burn with that _#confirmation bias_...


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 27, 2019)

Look at it another way:-

Say I write something that does not have that X factor and I want to improve it, yes, it makes sense look at it and decide what ways it differs from other writing that does have that factor, but how to do that is not necessarily obvious. TBH that first sentence is not the best bit of writing I have seen:-

I say, "Hey, if you see a written communique with sparkling quality X, you can learn how to better write quality X better into your own work by picking apart what makes that written communique so quality X!" 

 I would look at the way the ideas are structured first, is it simple and logical for example. I would also look at the actual words, do I need them all and are they the ones that are simplest to understand in the context?.

The ideas
 'Find something good', 'learn to improve your own work', 'Do it by deconstructing and emulating the good thing you found'
Call them A,B,and C, 

You could go B A C
'Learn to improve your work', 'find something good', 'deconstruct it to help you emulate it'

How about C B A?
'Deconstructing good work can help you emulate it', 'find something good', then use it to help you improve'

Differing structures have differing emphasis, decide which you want.

Reducing it to simple basics also makes it clearer what you are saying and allows you to structure a more complex re-phrasing. Phrases like "written communique with sparkling quality X" for 'good writing' stand out, and it is possible to rephrase . First look to keep it simple, second clear; 'written communique' is not a simple way to describe a piece of writing, it sounds like government, official writing. 'With sparkling quality X' is not particularly descriptive, it is saying 'It has something, but I don't know what'. having realised that you can then look for the qualities that make up your 'X factor'; clarity, concision, instant comprehension, original metaphor, stuff like that, and choose the appropriate ones.

It also displays the things that say little, like "I say "Hey…" . That is a speech thing translated onto paper, it is the sort of thing we punctuate speech with to give us time to think as speaker and cues in the listener that we are going to say something. You don't need it in writing, writing is permanent, you can read it and write it at your own speed and go back to check things if you wish.

Personally I feel it is easier to improve your writing by picking apart your own poorer bits than picking apart someone else's good bits. The nearest I would come would be to think, 'He writes well, how might he phrase this?'

Deciding which are the poorer bits is always controversial. The way that suits me best is to read it aloud; is it easy to do, does it simply flow off the page into my mouth? If not I try the methods I have detailed above for picking it apart and see what a reconstruction does.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 27, 2019)

> You sentence should not contain a comma and end in an exclamation mark.



Some authors might choose to break this "rule", for good reasons. So we can say it's not a good rule. Or not call it a rule at all, call it something else. (Or replace it with an understanding -- the comma and exclamation mark give competing instructions on pitch.)

That doesn't change the fact that you probably could all the books on grammar and punctuation and never find that. Or, for that matter, someone disagreeing with it. As far as I know, people THINK they understand exclamation marks, and writing a book is just a matter of expressing what they already know.

So, the OP asked about rules. If we include advice and principles, it seems to me that there's a lot we don't know.

When we get to actual writing, it's the same. One metaphorical technique is to use an example to imply the general principle. That's so close to synecdoche, I want to call it that. But that's not how synecdoche is defined or described. So that would be just one example of our existing knowledge falling short of what we know and leading to essentially misleading, unuseful advice.

And, in a way, we have already discussed another example of this. From my perspective, the awesome moment is a very useful technique writers should know that comes up a lot. The "rules" work surprisingly well. I know of no examples of it being discussed. The authors who use it often could sometimes benefit from a better understanding.

Others disagreed.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 27, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> Look at it another way:-
> 
> Say I write something that does not have that X factor and I want to improve it, yes, it makes sense look at it and decide what ways it differs from other writing that does have that factor, but how to do that is not necessarily obvious. TBH that first sentence is not the best bit of writing I have seen:-
> 
> ...



I think the order is up for interpretation. I was trying to emphasize that any form of written communication counts as writing (though not necessarily good writing). Reader is free to insert whatever quality in for X they desire. The quote bit was me paraphrasing my earlier posts in the thread. 

Writers often stink at what works or doesn't in their own work. We know what we're trying to say--unlike the reader--which is why ambiguous wording confuses readers but not the writer. It's also how we get into some continuity errors and seeming deus ex--we neglected to mention certain things at the outset or starting picturing things differently as the scene/story goes. People are pretty much always better at seeing faults in another's work than they are in their own (though they might be more ruthless in judgment on themselves once a fault is acknowledged). Even for basic things like typos and especially misspellings, other people at better at spotting them. 

I think, if there is an inviolable, true "rule of writing" it's that one has to actually write something. Finishing it could probably be another rule, but might be a guideline as "finished" for one person might not be finished for someone else, and one can still learn to be a better writer through not completing something (due to the process of writing it, and even acknowledging the failure to finish and examining the contributory causes for this failure). A third--again, more of a guideline--would be to strive to write better continuously. 

We all go about it different ways, but we all write different stories/communiques. What works really well in a Woman's Day gardening article might not work as well in a Gothic Horror.   Effective communication is what writing's all about--but that doesn't mean we have to do it the same. I think it's important to try to learn from every available source, which is why I dislike when some advice is tossed out without examination of what was said. Even if we're looking at poor examples, figuring out why said example is poor can help us write better just as much as seeing a master in action. Reading Woman's Day can still help a Gothic Horror novelist--the issue is "What is the author trying to learn?"


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 27, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> Point is good advice can come from anyone, anywhere, and at anytime. It's up to us to see it for what it is and to react accordingly.
> .



Have you ever received a piece of useful advice specifically concerning writing (as distinct from general life advice) from an illiterate? I doubt it. Do you think English monoglots can give advice on Chinese grammar ? See how silly it sounds to talk about knowledge as being some kind of open field where every opinion is potentially valid?

Sorry but it’s that simple -good advice almost always comes from somewhere tangible, has to have some experience or academic grounding. I’m not going to say it’s impossible for a blind man to know how to paint really well, but it’s clearly very rare and it’s patronizing to pretend like every viewpoint ought to be treated as important. That’s why this forum only works because we have the capacity to discuss and discredit idiotic ideas. It’s crowd wisdom, which works.

But crowd wisdom doesn’t mean the opinions of people on here (not mentioning names) who have never completed a single published project are worth anything on their own. Clearly advice from people who haven’t even figured out their own situation yet is not usually going to be helpful. If I can’t assess your knowledge based on the caliber of work it produces I am unlikely to take into account your views, sorry. And, as mentioned, taking advice because it “sounds right” isn’t good practice because it amounts to confirmation bias. 

So it’s not personal or anything. There’s just no other way to know if you should be listened to other than to base it on what, if anything, you have written.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 27, 2019)

I have spent time thinking about King's grammar, which to me is very easy reading.

But is that because of his skills, or his content editor's? Maybe we should be getting our grammar advice from his content editor.

King's diatribes against passive verbs and adverbs suggest inadequate understanding of those concepts. He did not check his advice against his own writing -- there's a lot to learn from studying his books, and I wish he had done that.

As far as I know, King likes what might be called strong or active verbs. He tries to write them. He doesn't care what grammar issue is involved.

So he did everything wrong for writing good advice. He did sound very confident, though. And colorful. And the point here is not to focus on King, he might be an extreme but he is typical -- (1) doing something well and giving good advice are two different skills, and (2) a lot of advice is not checked.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 27, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> I have spent time thinking about King's grammar, which to me is very easy reading.
> 
> But is that because of his skills, or his content editor's? Maybe we should be getting our grammar advice from his content editor.
> 
> ...




Really, King's simple writing style is designed to appeal to a very wide segment of society. Patterson writes in a relatively simple format as well (for a best seller.) He specifically writes mass-media entertainment, not literature.

But then you have writers like Grisham, who write at a very high level, but appeal to a smaller segment of the population.


But I do gotta agree with Scars on where to seek feedback.
If you were about to jump out of an airplane, would you let a noob pack your chute?
*Hells no!* You'd have the guy with 10,000 jumps under his belt pack that _thang_.
Advice is the same. Consider the source before you consider it gospel.




And with that in mind I should point out my own limited qualifications for advice.
I am not a best seller.
Tho I have written a number of books, I only make a few thousand a year.
But my advisory strength is in the fact that I have made every possible mistake in my writing.
If I suggest _"Don't do that..."_ it's not that I'm a genius...it's that I prolly did it twice and failed.
But I am told I write good characters.

Always consider the source.


----------



## Ken11 (Jul 27, 2019)

You bet your money you're not a genius.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 27, 2019)

"You bet your money you're not a genius"

10-9?



*<Muted>*


----------



## Ken11 (Jul 27, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> "You bet your money you're not a genius"
> 
> 10-9?


Don't pretend to care about the WF members. But be my guest, keep selling your books under the aforementioned false pretenses.



Genius?, Give me a break


----------



## Terry D (Jul 27, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> I have spent time thinking about King's grammar, which to me is very easy reading.
> 
> But is that because of his skills, or his content editor's? Maybe we should be getting our grammar advice from his content editor.
> 
> ...



God, this is lame.

King has a degree in English. He taught English, grammar, and composition before he became a full-time writer, not to mention the 60+ best sellers he has penned, yet you say his writings "suggest an inadequate understanding of concepts" like the use of passive verbs and adverbs? That statement is ludicrous to the extreme. It's this sort of tripe that is damaging to new writers. I've read your posts and threads about grammar and storytelling. You are the one with an appallingly "inadequate understanding" of these concepts, but that doesn't stop you from spilling buckets of bullshit all over these boards.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 27, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Have you ever received a piece of useful advice specifically concerning writing (as distinct from general life advice) from an illiterate? I doubt it. Do you think English monoglots can give advice on Chinese grammar ? See how silly it sounds to talk about knowledge as being some kind of open field where every opinion is potentially valid?


 As I was raised everyone has wisdom in them and everyone's opinion is has merit. I'm sorry if you don't see the world that way but I choose to value what everyone has to say on whatever subject they are talking about regardless of their experience. Now i will say that if someone starts spouting off about guns when they have no knowledge whatsoever of how they work or operate I'm not going to put there opionion in high regard or even use it for much more than an example on what not to do. And yes i have gleaned a nugget of wisdom from a homeless person before. Working at Mcdonalds for six+ years will do that for you.



luckyscars said:


> Sorry but it’s that simple -good advice almost always comes from somewhere tangible, has to have some experience or academic grounding. I’m not going to say it’s impossible for a blind man to know how to paint really well, but it’s clearly very rare and it’s patronizing to pretend like every viewpoint ought to be treated as important. That’s why this forum only works because we have the capacity to discuss and discredit idiotic ideas. It’s crowd wisdom, which works.


 And i can agree with this to a point but i'm not going to just disregard someone who may or may not have any experience at all. I choose to find the wisdom in what all have to say.



luckyscars said:


> But crowd wisdom doesn’t mean the opinions of people on here (not mentioning names) who have never completed a single published project are worth anything on their own. Clearly advice from people who haven’t even figured out their own situation yet is not usually going to be helpful. If I can’t assess your knowledge based on the caliber of work it produces I am unlikely to take into account your views, sorry. And, as mentioned, taking advice because it “sounds right” isn’t good practice because it amounts to confirmation bias.


 Point is good advice can come from anyone, anywhere, and at anytime. It's up to us to see it for what it is and to react accordingly.
I'm quoting that again to emphasize a point that my post was meant to apply to not just writing but life and all things in it.



luckyscars said:


> So it’s not personal or anything. There’s just no other way to know if you should be listened to other than to base it on what, if anything, you have written.


 Well i've got over 200,000 words under my belt along with ten plus years of research on the subject of writing, medieval warfare, guns, and a slew of other things but hey what do i know about it?


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 27, 2019)

Terry D said:


> God, this is lame.
> 
> King has a degree in English. He taught English, grammar, and composition before he became a full-time writer, not to mention the 60+ best sellers he has penned, yet you say his writings "suggest an inadequate understanding of concepts" like the use of passive verbs and adverbs? That statement is ludicrous to the extreme. It's this sort of tripe that is damaging to new writers. I've read your posts and threads about grammar and storytelling. You are the one with an appallingly "inadequate understanding" of these concepts, but that doesn't stop you from spilling buckets of bullshit all over these boards.



Or they just have a different understanding of the rules than you do.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 27, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> Or they just have a different understanding of the rules than you do.



Yeah, it must be that.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 27, 2019)

And I really wish people would stop calling them rules.
There are no rules when it comes to fiction.
There is only what will work in the current environment, and what will not.
Really, these things are *philosophies of writing*, not rules.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 27, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> And I really wish people would stop calling them rules.
> There are no rules when it comes to fiction.
> There is only what will work in the current environment, and what will not.
> Really, these things are *philosophies of writing*, not rules.



You know what yes let's call them Philosophies of writing seeing as we really can't all agree on what they should or should not be.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 27, 2019)

not good


Terry D said:


> God, this is lame.
> 
> King has a degree in English. He taught English, grammar, and composition before he became a full-time writer, not to mention the 60+ best sellers he has penned, yet you say his writings "suggest an inadequate understanding of concepts" like the use of passive verbs and adverbs? That statement is ludicrous to the extreme. It's this sort of tripe that is damaging to new writers. I've read your posts and threads about grammar and storytelling. You are the one with an appallingly "inadequate understanding" of these concepts, but that doesn't stop you from spilling buckets of bullshit all over these boards.



Obviously, if we already know everything about writing or crowds or experts are always right, then pretty much everything I write at WF is wrong and TerryD's assessment is correct. But if I'm right even half the time, then there's A LOT we don't know about writing. And I am always happy to explain! For example:

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. In his _diatribe against adverbs and passive verbs_, King displayed inadequate knowledge.

We can make fun of him attacking adverbs while using adverbs. (_usually_,_usually_,_not_,_seriously_,_usually_,_clearly_,_not._) In my experience, people who attack adverbs as a whole often back off when it is pointed out that "not" is an adverb. Don't we do that here? (Discussion on replacing -ly adverbs) Right or wrong, people usually don't want to tell upcoming authors to not use the word "not". So, I think his discussion is not as sophisticated as we would make at WF.

Attacking passive _verbs_, rather than passive _sentences _or passive _constructions _or passive _voice_, is odd. It's an unsophisticated way of talking about a difficult topic -- afaik you cannot look at just the verb and know if it's a passive verb. But I think that's how King thinks -- he tries to write strong verbs, and he doesn't care which particular grammar issue is involved.

King gives, as example, changing "The meeting will be held at seven o'clock" to "The meeting's at seven." That first sentence isn't passive, right? Was he just going off-topic without mentioning that?

The tragedy is, I went through part of King's book, and looked at his passive constructions, and it was a tour de force of when and why to use passive constructions. If he looked at his own writing, he could have had an interesting and afaik novel presentation.

Speaking of tragedies, adverbs get overused and misused _because they are powerful_. King has to know that, right? Telling authors to avoid them is bad advice.

I have already praised King's _writing _for easy reading. I have called him a master technician. There is disconnect between what he does and that grammar advice, which is fairly typical. I knew he taught English.


----------



## Aquilo (Jul 27, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> Attacking passive _verbs_, rather than passive _sentences _or passive _constructions _or passive _voice_, is odd. It's an unsophisticated way of talking about a topic -- afaik you cannot look at just the verb and know if it's a passive verb.



You'd be surprised what a verb can tell you. 

1 Dynamic and stative verbs (Dynamic = action verbs (ran), Stative = state of being (is loved)
2 weak v strong verbs (better known as regular verb (walk/walked) v irregular (teach/taught)
3 Passive voice only takes dynamic verbs: the ball was kicked, but not stative verbs: fantastic is the boy, unless it's a stative passive.
4 Stative verbs can be seen as 'passive' in a different sense, mostly because it's a state: it's not 'doing anything', just existing. Point being: the stative passive:

Sue broke the necklace (active)
The necklace was broken [by Sue] (passive)
The necklace is broken (stative passive) It's describing how no action is being taken, it's simply a state/condition etc. Stative passives verbs are usualy followed by prep phrases: Cassy is well known at the local shop.

The necklace is broken is pretty flat writing, and an edit could be advised: The necklace sits scattered over the floor.


----------



## Megan Pearson (Jul 27, 2019)

As always, I've learned something from reading through all of these many thoughts on 'Do we really know the rules of good writing?' Just to recap (because there's a lot here), we've covered topics as broad as 'rules as philosophy', what is useful advice, how to vet writing advice and, is it all just interpretation? And more. (My favorite thus far has been the uncommonly humorous examples of unveiled sarcasm. But, I digress--and so did they.) If the question was meant to spark a free-for-all food fight, it couldn't have done a better job.

However, the question is innocent of its consequences. It simply implies two things: 1. that there are such things as rules and, 2. that good writing follows them. I'm not sure either sub-topic has been very well thought out here, except for *Olly* and his thoughts on rules as 19th-century constructs. (Which I found to be very interesting. Thanks, Olly.) (There were other good thoughts here, too, it's just that his, in particular, stood out to me.)

The reason these are not being very well thought out is because, in today's culture, we lack the structure to do so. I.e., I'm saying that we, culturally, have a total disregard for rules in _anything_, much less writing in particular. Yet, we do follow 'the rules'. School children are taught "_i_ before _e_ except after _c_" because the rule--which does have exceptions--is useful for learning correct spelling. The fact that we use both indefinite and definite articles in English is a rule foreign speakers from, say, Russia, have to learn, as it is not a rule required by their language. Generally, I think we take rules for granted because we're so familiar with them--even if we don't use them correctly all the time. (I know that I don't!)

What do you think about when you ask yourself: _Who's your audience? For what purpose are you writing? Have you communicated your purpose to that audience clearly and effectively? Do your grammatical conventions, tone, voice, and style match audience expectations? What are the submission requirements for this publisher? Have I formatted my manuscript according to their requirements? (& so-on ad nauseam.) _Anytime you engage with these questions, this self-evaluation is measured against some set of rules found outside of yourself that your writing must coincide with (at some level) in order that others may read it. 

***

I almost didn't post anything here. (Too busy diving away from flying french fries as I read this thread!) Discussing something is great--but arguing? C'mon. We all have a better use for our time than that. 

Why I chose to post had to do with something *Terry D* said. This past year I had a rude awakening. In my case, I have been writing research papers for many years. Following some comments on the first draft of my master's thesis, I realized that I didn't know how to write a good research paper. Seriously! Now, I realize that for many of you here, school is so far in the rearview window that there's no one there waving good-bye to you anymore. Regardless. The point is, because of this epiphany, I spent a month re-reading _The Chicago Manual of Style_. What I learned is, I really don't (_didn't_--I hope I've improved somewhat) know how to write all that well. There was a lot of writing on that page but it wasn't _good_ writing. It wasn't good writing because _I wasn't following the rules_. So I scrapped the paper and rewrote it--with this new understanding of how the rules work. The result? I passed. The informal comment I received was, "most people don't pass." Wow. Spring forward to the present day, where I am working on rewriting a fiction manuscript I had shelved. I am finding my new appreciation of the rules to be highly useful in resolving some very practical problems I had been facing with this manuscript. Now I am of the opinion that you can't have _good writing_ without some understanding of _the rules_.

*The **long** of the short of this is,* if you (any reader here) are weighing how important 'the rules' are for your writing, consider their value as a tree providing the structure upon which you can hang your ideas. If you are just starting out, one of my favorite style manuals is _The Elephants of Style_. It's fun and it's an easy read.

Rules aren't bad--they're just culturally (ahem--pardon the pun) _out of_ _style_.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 27, 2019)

#Rules #Word_crimes

[video=youtube;8Gv0H-vPoDc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc[/video]


----------



## Megan Pearson (Jul 27, 2019)

OMG, Wierd Al is still making music? (And it's actually educational?) How cool is that!?!


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 27, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> #Rules #Word_crimes
> 
> [video=youtube;8Gv0H-vPoDc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc[/video]



I love Weird Al. He's just the best kind of person.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 28, 2019)

Megan Pearson said:


> OMG, Wierd Al is still making music? (And it's actually educational?) How cool is that!?!


Yup, still one of the most reliable producers of music in the business. Pretty sure he bathes in the blood of virgins and will outlive us all.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jul 28, 2019)

Terry D said:


> God, this is lame.
> 
> King has a degree in English. He taught English, grammar, and composition before he became a full-time writer, not to mention the 60+ best sellers he has penned, yet you say his writings "suggest an inadequate understanding of concepts" like the use of passive verbs and adverbs? That statement is ludicrous to the extreme. It's this sort of tripe that is damaging to new writers. I've read your posts and threads about grammar and storytelling. You are the one with an appallingly "inadequate understanding" of these concepts, but that doesn't stop you from spilling buckets of bullshit all over these boards.


[video=youtube;56R3hU-fWZY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56R3hU-fWZY[/video]


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 28, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> You'd be surprised what a verb can tell you.
> 
> 1 Dynamic and stative verbs (Dynamic = action verbs (ran), Stative = state of being (is loved)
> 2 weak v strong verbs (better known as regular verb (walk/walked) v irregular (teach/taught)
> ...



I think a discussion at this level will lose everyone. They will ask _Do I really need to know this to write well?_ And I think the answer is no.  As writers we're supposed to recognize extra words just spinning their wheels and not getting much done. Then fix the problem.

How does King think? We get a small window. Note how much mention is made of grammar:



> The timid fellow writes *The meeting will be held at seven o'clock* because that somehow says to him, "Put it this way and people will believe you really know." Purge this quisling thought! Don't be a muggle! Throw back your shoulders, stick out your chin, and put that meeting in charge! Write *The meeting's at seven*. There, by God! Don't you feel better?



Does King think that sentence he was criticizing was passive? He's discussing passive verbs, so he does? It doesn't fit his definition, so he doesn't? I've stated my opinion -- it's like he doesn't care.

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

So let's talk verbs.

(you were warned.)

My understanding is that "The car was scratched" would be passive (or what you call passive active) if scratched is a verb. The same sentence would be static if scratched was an adjective. (Wiki discusses this.)

Whether the static sentence is passive (passive stative) apparently depends on which linguist you ask. From Wiki: "Sentences of the second type are called _false passives_ by some linguists, who feel that such sentences are simply confused with the passive voice due to their outward similarity. Other linguists consider the second type to be a different kind of passive..." Passive stative is not passive according to King's definition ("With a passive verb, something is being done to the subject of the sentence.")

And do we care what the linguists decide? It wouldn't make any difference to writing or editing how the sentence is categorized, right?

I recall the same problem with progressive verbs -- they could be also analyzed as participles. (She was shouting his name.) It was frustrating.

And when we add in cleft sentences (if I am using that word correctly) and weak verbs being propped up by adverbs, and I suspect other things, it becomes a very complicated analysis with a somewhat simple solution write strong verbs (as writer's would understand the word "strong").

Thanks for forcing me to try to work on this level.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 28, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> You know what yes let's call them Philosophies of writing seeing as we really can't all agree on what they should or should not be.




No, you are still looking at it from the wrong perspective.
These are philosophies, and some will work for your style of writing, and some will not.
But you can learn from all of them.
Use the philosophies that fit your style, and put the others on a back burner.
Just because they do not fit your current writing doesn't mean they won't be useful to your future self.


_An ordinary man learns from his own mistakes.
But the extraordinary man learns from the mistakes of others._


----------



## Aquilo (Jul 28, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> I think a discussion at this level will lose everyone. They will ask _Do I really need to know this to write well?_ And I think the answer is no. As writers we're supposed to recognize extra words just spinning their wheels and not getting much done. Then fix the problem.



Emma, you asked if King's sentence is passive or not. You also questioned King's knowledge on passives, so you brought up this conversation. It's directed at no one but you to help you work it out without giving you the answer. Considering you said you'd studied King and what he was saying, I assumed you weren't after layman's terms.

Does an author need to know anything that technical?

You're asking the wrong person. I don't come into editing via literature; I come at via linguistics. If you've got an author who's repeating stative passives, making a character a passivist in their own story where they can't be seen to act for himself, just exist, all because the issue is how he's built his story on that particular construction--and I can see that's the issues--that's not the time to beat around the grammar bush by not classifying it correctly and offering suggestion to help sharpen imagery and action.

They might not need to know that when writing, no -- but when working with an editor, they need to be open to learning about it so they can fix it if it's an issue.


----------



## Sir-KP (Jul 28, 2019)

Learn the rules first. Once you understand it, go ahead break it to make it unconventional.

This applies to everything in art. There are rules in logo design, poster design, typography, photography, videography that you must know. When you understand them, it goes unspoken and you will automatically push the boundary breaking the rule in 'educated' way.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 29, 2019)

1. What is this person an expert at? Yes, King taught high school English. His grammatical diatribes suggest little knowledge of grammar. If you would like to get grammar information from a high school teacher, there are much better (and much more modern and experienced) sources. He doesn't really give advice about writing business documents, but to the extent he does, he seems like someone who has read a lot of them and not written any. So trust his impression on reading them.

He's also a master writer, and if you would like to try to get inside his head to how he writes, the clues are there. Ignore the copying of Strunk and White. His central thesis:


> Verbs come in two types, active and passive.



He could have written: "There are two types of verbs, active and passive." But that would have been a passive verb ("are"). King doesn't say it, but he tries to change his passive verbs to active verbs. Like, in this example, "come."

My analysis here is as grammatically unsophisticated as can be. It is down the King's level, because _I am taking him seriously_. It seems incredible, I know, but first of all he said it. And second of all, he gives an example of a passive sentence that is "a fair way to put this" but the verbs still "irk the shit out of me." I think his focus is on verbs.

I wrote a chapter of advice on active versus passive. It was occasionally difficult to me to tell whether a sentence was active versus passive. ("The necklace is broken," for example) And I realized -- it didn't matter. Learn to recognize verbs that aren't doing enough. Fix them. And that has general utility.

You can ignore me or whatever, but why would you read a book by an expert writer and not be interested in what he's thinking when he writes?


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 29, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> 1. What is this person an expert at? Yes, King taught high school English. His grammatical diatribes suggest little knowledge of grammar. If you would like to get grammar information from a high school teacher, there are much better (and much more modern and experienced) sources. He doesn't really give advice about writing business documents, but to the extent he does, he seems like someone who has read a lot of them and not written any. So trust his impression on reading them.
> 
> He's also a master writer, and if you would like to try to get inside his head to how he writes, the clues are there. Ignore the copying of Strunk and White. His central thesis:
> 
> ...



I think probably the answer is that King is human and like any human occasionally does not practice what he preaches. I despise the phrase “At this moment in time” and yet occasionally find myself using it. So what?  

I’m not sure why this is even an issue. The point King makes, which is true, is that generally the active voice is better. That doesn’t mean there’s no place for passive, sometimes you want a watery or even a vague effect, only that in a situation where a choice exists the passive is less likely to generate as much impact and should therefore be less favored. 

Mainly I think King is trying to simply get writers to learn the difference between active and passive and start considering other, better, ways to write. I don’t think this “rule” is meant as some kind of absolute not intended as part of a grammar master class.

Can you give an example of a sentence where a passive voice would be more effective than an active one?


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 29, 2019)

Taking King seriously, part 2


> In 1976, when my mother was still a relatively young woman, she *wasdiagnosed* with ovarian cancer.(Revival, King)



Why did the author write this passive sentence. King speculates in his diatribe, though not about this sentence or any of his own sentences: "I think timid writers like them for the same reason timid lovers like passivepartner." Another possibility: "unsure writers alsofeel the passive voice somehow lends their work authority, perhaps even a quality of majesty."

I think we can rule those out. To introduce a little grammar, and be a lot less sexy, the doctors weren't part of the story, so why go through the work of making the reader read and understand that. It was basic good writing.

King also works to change the verb, but "developed" didn't work wrong. Mostly it was a technical issue, but honestly, I think he wanted to portray this as something happening to the mother, instead of something she did.

But . . . 

I have noticed several times how I wanted to give the advice not to be timid. Similes are safer than metaphors, but writers should trust their metaphor and writing skill and write the metaphor. Or take this example (adpated from King's diatribe on active/passive):



> The meeting's at seven.
> The meeting's at seven o'clock.



Version #2 is safer. If you think you need it to avoid ambiguity, you should write it. But if you think you don't need it, but you are timid, don't be timid. Feel unsafe but trust your judgment.

King removed "o'clock" in his edit.

That advice could go wrong in a lot of ways. But I suspect it's good advice.

(And if you want to criticize me for psychoanalyzing King, yes I might be wrong, but that's the only way to get anything useful out of that diatribe. If you don't want to do that, you got nothin'. Again, I was taking King seriously.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 29, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I think probably the answer is that King is human and like any human occasionally does not practice what he preaches. I despise the phrase “At this moment in time” and yet occasionally find myself using it. So what?
> 
> I’m not sure why this is even an issue. The point King makes, which is true, is that generally the active voice is better. That doesn’t mean there’s no place for passive, sometimes you want a watery or even a vague effect, only that in a situation where a choice exists the passive is less likely to generate as much impact and should therefore be less favored.
> 
> ...



Already done: When the agent isn't a part of the story and can be left out. Or no one cares who the agent is. Another example:



> In any case, the clothes *were washed* in the hulk, hung on the clothesline in the side yard, and finally folded away in my bureau drawers.(Revival, Stephen King, editor Nan Graham, page 4)



When the agent is obvious or already described. Describing the victim of a car accident:



> One arm was all Patsy Jacobs could use, because the other *had been torn off* at the elbow. (Revival, page 54)



When the description of the agent is too long, a straightforward rewrite into active leads to a grammatically awkward sentence.



> it *was dominated* by a lake of real water that shone bright blue even in the gloom. (Revival, page 17)
> A lake of real water that shone bright blue even in the gloom dominated it.



The example above also shows how the passive can put a pronoun ("it") closer to what it refers to.

IMO, there can be a subtle world of things like mood, emphasis, and flow, and that can give subtle advantages to passive. The decisions there are actually close, and one choice is to always prefer active.

But in the sections I studies in Revival, almost all the close decisions seemed to go for active over passive, leaving most examples above where passive seemed so much better. This was a close call:



> 1. I expect he wasn't asked. (page 65)
> 2. I expect no one asked him.



There is no agent; "no one" doesn't seem strong.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 29, 2019)

The points King makes about passive verbs, about adjectives, about timid writing, are all rock solid. So is his usage of adjectives and passive construction. There is no conflict in that to anyone who actually understands writing.

Successful authors who write about writing typically give their instruction in terms of near absolutes; 'kill your darlings', 'never open a story with your protagonist waking up', 'ban all adverbs', 'only use active voice'. And all of them are guilty of breaking those 'rules'. Why is that? Are they too stupid to know that they are violating their own commandments (which is what Emma suggests with King). No, they write their advice that way because to do so is a far, far better -- and more entertaining -- way to dispense advice than to be timid and say, "Well, most of the time you will be better off if you stick with active verbs, but sometimes there's a place to use the passive voice. You just need to figure out when and where." That would be boring, and completely mute the point being made; which is, the best writing is active and vigorous. It has impact and confidence.

Most of the time passive voice tastes like watered-down beer. Most of the time adverbs leech the strength from the verbs they modify. That is the truth. No one, however (at least no one with half-a-brain) believes that there is no place for the passive voice, or that modifiers can't be used. So, nit-picking the advice given by others -- who have demonstrated they know far more than we do -- is simply a self-serving exercise in ego.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 29, 2019)

Terry D said:


> The points King makes about passive verbs, about adjectives, about timid writing, are all rock solid. So is his usage of adjectives and passive construction. There is no conflict in that to anyone who actually understands writing.


 Well some people may need a little more clarification on just what the issue with that is to begin with. To outright assume that everyone who writes knows all of the rules is more than a little presumptuous. 



Terry D said:


> Successful authors who write about writing typically give their instruction in terms of near absolutes; 'kill your darlings', 'never open a story with your protagonist waking up', 'ban all adverbs', 'only use active voice'. And all of them are guilty of breaking those 'rules'. Why is that? Are they too stupid to know that they are violating their own commandments (which is what Emma suggests with King). No, they write their advice that way because to do so is a far, far better -- and more entertaining -- way to dispense advice than to be timid and say, "Well, most of the time you will be better off if you stick with active verbs, but sometimes there's a place to use the passive voice. You just need to figure out when and where." That would be boring, and completely mute the point being made; which is, the best writing is active and vigorous. It has impact and confidence.


 Except for the fact that near absolutes are not great for everyone I can agree with some points you make here. Not everyone can understand the "more entertaining" way of dispensing advice. Some of us just need to have it plain and simple'y told to us. And sometimes subtle soft writing has it's place as well. Not all writing can  or even has to be vigorous and bombastic.



Terry D said:


> Most of the time passive voice tastes like watered-down beer. Most of the time adverbs leech the strength from the verbs they modify. That is the truth. No one, however (at least no one with half-a-brain) believes that there is no place for the passive voice, or that modifiers can't be used. So, nit-picking the advice given by others -- who have demonstrated they know far more than we do -- is simply a self-serving exercise in ego.


 Nit picking as you call it is just one way some people can break things down into easier more manageable pieces for further study.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 29, 2019)

> In 1976, when my mother was still a relatively young woman, she





> *wasdiagnosed with ovarian cancer.(Revival, King)*





> In any case, the clothes *were washed in the hulk,   **hung on the clothesline in the side yard, and finally folded away in my bureau drawers.(Revival, Stephen King, editor Nan Graham, page 4)*





> One arm was all Patsy Jacobs could use, because the other *had been torn off at the elbow. (Revival, page 54)*





> it *was dominated by a lake of real water that shone bright blue even in the gloom. (Revival, page 17)
> A lake of real water that shone bright blue even in the gloom dominated it.*


*

*What you neglected to point out here, or just completely missed, is that the whole first section of this book is a reminiscence written in pluperfect tense. Within that structure the constructions you quote are completely correct and are in no way contrary to King's advice in his book.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 29, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> Well some people may need a little more clarification on just what the issue with that is to begin with. To outright assume that everyone who writes knows all of the rules is more than a little presumptuous.
> 
> Except for the fact that near absolutes are not great for everyone I can agree with some points you make here. Not everyone can understand the "more entertaining" way of dispensing advice. Some of us just need to have it plain and simple'y told to us. And sometimes subtle soft writing has it's place as well. Not all writing can  or even has to be vigorous and bombastic.
> 
> Nit picking as you call it is just one way some people can break things down into easier more manageable pieces for further study.



Then I would suggest getting King's book and reading it. The interpretation of what he's trying to in this thread is wrong.


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 29, 2019)

Terry D said:


> Then I would suggest getting King's book and reading it. The interpretation of what he's trying to in this thread is wrong.


 
Which of King's books is it? I might have read it already with all of his books that I have at home.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 29, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> Which of King's books is it? I might have read it already with all of his books that I have at home.



It's called, _On Writing, a Memoir of the Craft_


----------



## Rojack79 (Jul 29, 2019)

Terry D said:


> It's called, _On Writing, a Memoir of the Craft_



Ahh ok. I don't have that one but i do have many of his other novels as well as a few other books on writing.


----------



## AdrianBraysy (Jul 29, 2019)

After reading over your responses, I have concluded that 1. Rules are more like suggestions and 2. Should be treated as "if" statements.

For example, some story structure "rules" have to do with giving your story a flow, giving it a sense of harmony, either by staying consistent in tone/style or by some other method. This type of rule would obviously not apply to a writer who wants extreme contrasts, disjointed narratives and novels with a distorted feel to them. Perhaps they are trying to write something like the Astrid Lindgren stories, told in a nonlinnear narrative with torture and sexual assault. Or write a family friendly fairytale for 80k words before going bananas and turning the whole thing into a commentary on the creation of Gulags. I'm just saying that not following the "rules" can lead to some interesting results, and what kind of writer doesn't wish to experiment from time to time?

Oddly enough, this is in contrast to one of my earlier post, in which I wrote about how I enjoy arbitrary, self-imposed rules. These rules are different from novel to novel though, and topic for another discussion.


----------



## Aquilo (Jul 29, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> 1. What is this person an expert at? Yes, King taught high school English. His grammatical diatribes suggest little knowledge of grammar. If you would like to get grammar information from a high school teacher, there are much better (and much more modern and experienced) sources.



This I'll agree with to a certain extent: English teachers aren't linguists, just like most authors aren't. My 5-year-old was being taught phonetics, and we had to go after school to help learn the school's new way of teaching a kid's version of the IPA. His teacher couldn't understand why 'th' and 'th' was represented twice on the phonetics chart (one's a voiced fricative, the other isn't). English teachers are taught to teach English, but it won't always be as in-depth as a linguist will be taught. But that doesn't make my kid's English teacher bad at her job: she was teaching a new system she was learning at the time too.

King's advice remains solid, and in many ways, you're saying what he's saying: if it's flat: fix it.  



> It was occasionally difficult to me to tell whether a sentence was active versus passive. ("The necklace is broken," for example) And I realized -- it didn't matter.



Semantics... word order... they like to screw with the best of heads. One countries full stop is another's period. Which is why it's vital to know where the OP is from in order to tell him which 'rules' are there for him.



> Learn to recognize verbs that aren't doing enough.



Yes. And if it were up to me, I'd work on kicking butt with relative clauses for the most part: the boy is/was beautiful, the schools are/were full. Also dummy 'it': It was a beautiful day (It was is doing nothing here.) Stative passives... the list is endless, but it comes to the basis of what King is saying: get more active. E.g., the simple

The school was full 
v

Teachers battled their way through the twists and turns of the school corridors, full-on breast-stroke through the writhing sea of late teen kids with enough piercings to hook a few Orcas, then stand laughing and pointing cameras as they drown.



> Why did the author write this passive sentence. King speculates in his diatribe, though not about this sentence or any of his own sentences: "I think timid writers like them for the same reason timid lovers like passivepartner." Another possibility: "unsure writers alsofeel the passive voice somehow lends their work authority, perhaps even a quality of majesty."
> 
> I think we can rule those out. To introduce a little grammar, and be a lot less sexy, the doctors weren't part of the story, so why go through the work of making the reader read and understand that. It was basic good writing.



King never said never use a passive. And the way he uses: she was diagnosed... it's typical usage when you want to make the agent more important than the actant. The doctors diagnosed her put more emphasis on the doctor, when to King 'She' is more important.



> Version #2 is safer. If you think you need it to avoid ambiguity, you should write it. But if you think you don't need it, but you are timid, don't be timid. Feel unsafe but trust your judgment.
> 
> King removed "o'clock" in his edit.



Didn't you say King's original was: the meeting will be held at seven o'clock? Therefore he removes 'will be held' and 'o'clock'. I honestly don't know: I've not read King's work, but because I haven't read it, this becomes a confusing discussion without seeing the actual quotes from his work.



> (And if you want to criticize me for psychoanalyzing King, yes I might be wrong, but that's the only way to get anything useful out of that diatribe. If you don't want to do that, you got nothin'. Again, I was taking King seriously.



Just please keep in mind that those of who haven't read it won't know the full argument, and it could lead to getting it wrong as well. I honestly can't judge King, not on his grammar knowledge  -- because I haven't read it! I've just read his fiction and know he's good at what he does. If I want to know how to classify word order, I go to the likes of Halliday, Crystal, or Short.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 31, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> King never said never use a passive.
> 
> ... this becomes a confusing discussion without seeing the actual quotes from his work.
> 
> Just please keep in mind that those of who haven't read it won't know the full argument....



This is a reproduction of King's discussion on passive/active. Sorry, I should have posted that.

I will use this opportunity to correct myself: This sentence (which King called passive and I questioned) could very plausibly be called passive.



> The meeting will be held at seven o'clock



To rewrite it to active in a straightforward way, assuming an agent for the action:



> The Civic association will hold the meeting at seven o'clock



Whether or not that's better is debatable. King probably wouldn't like it, because he suggested removing "o'clock" and switching to present tense, which has a variety of effects (including that I would not call that sentence passive it if was in present tense). That left him with:



> The meeting's at seven.



This is, in the end, not an example of the advantages of converting passive to active; t's an example of how a lot of changes can improve a sentence. Apparently that sentence doesn't even count as active, it's a linking verb.

To try to contribute to the OP. Examples can end up exaggerated, accidentally or intentionally making the advice sound more powerful than it is.

 I'm guessing that wishy-washy advice doesn't sell well. King attacks passive verbs. Suppose he adds, "And by the way, there are some perfectly good reasons to use passive verbs." Now how valuable is his advice? You as writer now have to figure out if your sentence can be improved or not, which is kind of where you started before King's advice.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 1, 2019)

Oh, look; Fonzi is jumping a shark!


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 2, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> I'm guessing that wishy-washy advice doesn't sell well. King attacks passive verbs. Suppose he adds, "And by the way, there are some perfectly good reasons to use passive verbs." Now how valuable is his advice? You as writer now have to figure out if your sentence can be improved or not, which is kind of where you started before King's advice.



Thjs goes back to the point Terry made a couple pages back and which is becoming such a recurring theme on this forum it’s almost worthy of satire - I swear, sometimes in writing it seems nobody can have an opinion anymore that they don’t have to water down with a dozen get-out clauses, lest they be hit with the swinging axe of pedantry...

Advice doesn’t have to be technically correct to be spiritually correct and therefore useful. The point of King’s attack (I wouldn’t call it an attack but that’s okay) on passivity is not to actually say passive verbs are always bad. He’s not saying that even if you can pull a million quotes of him appearing to say it, and I know that sounds like doublethink but it’s not. What it is, is an opinion along the same lines of Margaret Thatcher’s “there’s no such thing as society” or Ronald Reagan’s “thou shall not speak ill of a fellow republican”. It’s creating catchphrases that are easy to remember (because in part they are not wishy-washy) and are true (or defensible at least) in spirit but nonetheless riddled with holes if taken literately by a purist/pedant - there obviously is such thing as society and some Republicans, I am sure even Reagan would have agreed, are awful.  

Mostly is the operative word. Nobody in their right mind thinks this advice regarding passive voice is to be applied fastidiously in every situation ever. King doesn’t, we know this because he himself uses the passive voice. The idea is to get writers scrutinizing this aspect and seeking out more active alternatives if and when they are available and workable. 

So constantly bringing up examples that contradict King for the purposes of undermining his advice as absolutist nonsense is redundant. Nobody is saying there aren’t fine sentences written passively. The point is for every one, ten or a hundred examples of “good passive” there are, at least in King’s Opinion (and I happen to agree) there are probably three times more bad examples. The trick is to develop the critical eye and to at least think about upgrading (or downgrading, if you prefer) sentences into active because of can lead to more impact and less word traffic. This so believe is Kings point in a nutshell.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 2, 2019)

Look, no one ever became a successful author because their grammar and composition was technically perfect. No poets. No non-fiction writers. No writers of novels or short stories. They became successful because their writing resonates with their readers. They know how to string words together to achieve the effect they want. Sometimes that is accomplished by writing in expected ways (following the rules), other times it is done by upending those expectations. The difference between successful writers (writers who actually sell their work) and the rest is that the vast majority of the latter can't get that resonance in their writing. Often because they are too lazy to learn what works in most cases (rules), opting instead to rely on their own, poorly informed, judgement. I use the word "lazy" intentionally, because that's just what that sort of 'rule breaking' is, lazy. It shows a disregard for the craft of writing. 

I know I often sound like a grumpy old SOB when it comes to some of these topics. That's because I am a grumpy old SOB when it comes to people fucking around with the writing craft. I have scant regard for those who think their ideas and worlds are more important than the skill with which they execute those ideas. Ideas alone are check-out-counter candy; cheap, lacking in any real substance, and available everywhere. I feel the same for those whose writing -- if we ever see any of it -- is shit-to-mediocre, yet they try to invent their own grammatical standards and obfuscate their ignorance under layers of worthless jargon. Writing is easy. Writing well is hard, and if you think you can do it without listening to good advice, and understanding why some things work and other do not, you are fooling yourself.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 2, 2019)

Suppose Jane Newwriter has 3 times as many bad passive sentences than good. She reads King's advice, takes it as saying she should change passive to active, and does that. Jane is happy.

Now, suppose Jane is instead told that 75% of her passive sentence would be better as active. How is she supposed to apply that advice? She can still change all of her sentences to active, and she will get the same dramatic improvement -- 75% of her sentences get better and only 25% get worse. But she won't be happy -- she can do the math and see that 25% of her changes were wrong.

So, my point remains: Saying something works all the time is good for selling books and making people happy. Admitting that it works only some of the time isn't.

I think you pointed out the advantages of the absolute -- it's catchy and memorable. King's essay reeks of that. Implying that all of Jane's passives should be active cannot be defended as true, though.

So what advice would be most helpful to Jane? This has been discussed a lot. The reality is, there are advantages to writing in active over passive. Luckyscars suggests two: "more impact and less word traffic". King doesn't mention those. And if Jane knows those, she might profitably think twice about changing from passive to active when that increases word count. So I like understanding. I like intuitive judgment, too.

Those exceptions -- when passive seems better -- shouldn't be seen as annoying. They can be a tour of the principles of good writing. I don't know how much Jane would have to be paid to get her to read them.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 2, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> Suppose Jane Newwriter has 3 times as many bad passive sentences than good. She reads King's advice, takes it as saying she should change passive to active, and does that. Jane is happy.
> 
> Now, suppose Jane is instead told that 75% of her passive sentence would be better as active. How is she supposed to apply that advice? She can still change all of her sentences to active, and she will get the same dramatic improvement -- 75% of her sentences get better and only 25% get worse. But she won't be happy -- she can do the math and see that 25% of her changes were wrong.
> 
> ...



How often do we hear the phrase “Smoking kills”? All the time. We all know smoking doesn’t necessarily kill - that this statement is not technically 100% accurate - there are examples of people who live long and pretty healthy lives who smoke. But we also know (1) That smoking does in many (most?) cases lead to early death and (2) That the message is sound  - don’t smoke. 

I assume your response to “smoking kills” isn’t to call up the surgeon general to complain about his/her plainly inaccurate advice. Right? Well it’s the same here. Passive voice is a literary equivalent of a filterless camel. It might not kill your effect, but it probably will, and it’s best to think twice before lighting up. That’s all King is intending, as I interpret it.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 3, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> How often do we hear the phrase “Smoking kills”? All the time. We all know smoking doesn’t necessarily kill - that this statement is not technically 100% accurate - there are examples of people who live long and pretty healthy lives who smoke. But we also know (1) That smoking does in many (most?) cases lead to early death and (2) That the message is sound  - don’t smoke.
> 
> I assume your response to “smoking kills” isn’t to call up the surgeon general to complain about his/her plainly inaccurate advice. Right? Well it’s the same here. Passive voice is a literary equivalent of a filterless camel. It might not kill your effect, but it probably will, and it’s best to think twice before lighting up. That’s all King is intending, as I interpret it.



For health reasons, avoid smoking.

Afaik, that works on everyone. No is going to beat that rule. No underlying knowledge is needed to do the right thin

Avoid passives.

In our example, Jane's passives are better 25% of the time. Avoiding all of the time is great for cigarettes, not good for passives. We hope she has underlying knowledge that enables her to choose which one is best.

So the examples are very different. And, in this case, the underlying knowledge can be an important understanding of principles of writing that apply in other situations. (And, having those, I don't know how much the simple advice is relevant any more.)


----------



## Aquilo (Aug 3, 2019)

At the end of the day, everyone needs an editor. That should tell you that no author is expected to be perfect. You really only can learn so much before you need to do what counts: write.


----------



## Rojack79 (Aug 3, 2019)

Ok so I'm going to post this in an effort to try and get this thread back on track and out of the murky "Debate" category and back into the "Discussion" category.

1) King being a hypocrite about his own advice really shouldn't be shocking to anyone who's been alive long enough to know about humanity in general. There is hypocrisy everywhere being peddled by anyone & everyone at any given time, place or moment. Weather or not one person says to use active or passive voice in there story is irrelevant. That person is the author of there story and so they are going to do what they feel is bed for there story. Is it wrong or improper? Most likely yes but we really don't have any say in what they end up doing.

2) Now if I'm reading Terry's post correctly then they're saying that you must know the basic rules of writing first before you start to go off the rails with your own brand of "writing" otherwise your going to end up with a huge lump of coal when you could have had a nice shiny diamond. This is absolutely correct. I would add that you not only need to have a proper understanding of the writing craft but also as someone else pointed out a few 100,000 words under your belt to boot. Now i am mostly self taught when it comes to my writing background. I wasn't ably to go to college for writing like some others but I buckled down in high school and got an A+ in English, literature, and Writing all four years of my young adult life. Then after a few years of floundering and looking for work I got the chance to do some writing of my own. I got into fanfiction and let me tell you my first story sucked. It was rushed, full of errors and bad grammar because I was in a rush to get it done. I scrapped it, went back to the drawing board and started over. I continued to do this until my fanfiction was worthy of being posted up for others to read. It still has some glareing flaws but hey what are you going to do? Still after that I started on several other projects until this year when I started going for my own original story and by the way no originality is not dead. It's just becoming harder to spot and do well.

3) To sum up this discussion in nutshell Do We Really Know The Rules of Good Writing? In all honesty we as writers should know the basic by now and then have a smattering of advanced knowledge depending on our own individual journeys in the writing world. That's just a given. Can we challenge those rules? When we have the right knowhow and experience to pull off breaking the rules then yes, we can break them, alter them, and change them to better tell the story that we need to tell but not before hand. Trust me it never ends well.


----------



## Aquilo (Aug 3, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> Suppose Jane Newwriter has 3 times as many bad passive sentences than good. She reads King's advice, takes it as saying she should change passive to active, and does that. Jane is happy.
> 
> Now, suppose Jane is instead told that 75% of her passive sentence would be better as active. How is she supposed to apply that advice? She can still change all of her sentences to active, and she will get the same dramatic improvement -- 75% of her sentences get better and only 25% get worse. But she won't be happy -- she can do the math and see that 25% of her changes were wrong.
> 
> ...



If King is saying all passives are incorrect, then that's bad advice. And you're right to point it out. There's no such thing as absolutes, and only a fool deals them out. But I know from his writing that he uses passives himself, and the smart author will see that, which is why it's always best to read, then read some more.

At the end of the day, linguists fight and squabble over what is and what isn't, just look at functional grammar compared to transformational grammar.

At some point, an author needs to break away and think for themselves. If King is using passives in his work and its selling, that's enough for any writer to learn.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 3, 2019)

Here’s the actual quote in case anybody cares about actually reading and understanding the man’s words for themselves as opposed to snatching at judgment...



> [One] of my pet peeves [has] to do with the most basic level of writing, and I want to get [it] off my chest before we move along. Verbs come in two types, active and passive. With an active verb, the subject of the sentence is doing something. With a passive verb, something is being done to the subject of the sentence. The subject is just letting it happen. You should avoid the passive voice. I'm not the only one who says so; you can find the same advice in The Elements of Style.
> 
> Messrs. Strunk and White don't speculate as to why so many writers are attracted to passive verbs, but I'm willing to; I think timid writers like them for the same reason timid lovers like passive partners. The passive voice is safe. There is no troublesome action to contend with; the subject just has to close its eyes and think of England, to paraphrase Queen Victoria. I think unsure writers also feel the passive voice somehow lends their work authority, perhaps even a quality of majesty. If you find instruction manuals and lawyers' torts majestic, I guess it does.
> The timid fellow writes The meeting will be held at seven o'clock because that somehow says to him, "Put it this way and people will believe you really know." Purge this quisling thought! Don't be a muggle! Throw back your shoulders, stick out your chin, and put that meeting in charge!
> ...



As someone who does not care for King very much, I get no sense of serious absolutes from the above. It sounds more like somebody recounting an opinion based on their own wealth of experience. No idea why it’s been made such a song and dance of.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Aug 3, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> No idea why it’s been made such a song and dance of.



There is a line of Bob Dylan's about, 'A lot of people got a lot of knives and forks on their table, aim they've got to cut something.'  Put it another way, it's a bit like Parkinson's law, where things expand to fill the space available. Maybe something like that ?


----------



## Aquilo (Aug 3, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I get no sense of serious absolutes from the above.



Emma is misguided on the absolutes, but the quote you give does show the limits of King's understanding, which is what Emma is talking about. 



> Verbs come in two types, active and passive.



Yes.



> With an active verb, the subject of the sentence is doing something. With a passive verb, something is being done to the subject of the sentence.



Not always. The passive is divided, which can include the stative passive, where no action is being done at all. King is dealing in absolutes by saying there's one passive.

King's a master at writing, but he is potentially flawed with the logistics. I can see why some tentative authors would question that. If they're being told to look out for passives and half of the equation is missing on what exactly constitutes a passive, how can they look at reworking them? There's knowing half the rules, then knowing all the rules.

And the confusion can be easily spotted. Can you tell whether the following is a stative passive or passive?

She was married in 1998.

in all honesty, it has the potential to be either.

She was married in 1998 (the act of getting married in 1998: passive voice: action). King's point
She was married in 1998 (the state of being married throughout 1998: a stative passive). King's ?

Passives are always brought up, but sometimes I understand why.


----------



## seigfried007 (Aug 3, 2019)

However, both forms of passive are inherently less active and exciting than an active verb. Pretty much it boils down to the extermination of "to be" in all forms because they add extra words, slow things down, and don't "do anything." "To do" is more exciting than "to be." States of being aren't exciting (and that's basically what both forms of passive tense are, depending on how one reads them--as Aquilo showed).

I hate absolutes though. They're action packed, punchy and more interesting but inherently missing something--the exceptions. Exceptions are important. There are lots of good reasons to use passive. 

Kind of a weird but related aside, one of my characters concluded he wanted to be a subject as opposed to the direct object or the object of a preposition in the sentences of his life. He felt it was objectifying, and I thought it was a fascinating way to add some insidious depth to the work. Passive voice basically makes a character a direct object (or the object of a preposition) to some other _unstated_ form of the sentence. 

She was married in 1985.
She married in 1985.
She married Bob in 1985. 
Bob married her in 1985.
She was married to Bob in 1985.
Bob was married to her in 1985.
They married in 1985.
A marriage occurred between Bob and her in 1985.
In 1985, she and Bob married.

These all state the same things, but they do have slightly different connotations and emphasis. Each of them could feasibly be the best bet, depending on the surrounding sentences in the piece. If the writer wants to draw a sentence out to slow the piece down or shorten it for punch. If the writer wants to give active agency to a character--or deny them agency in their own lives. It's subtle, but it'll add up.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 3, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> Emma is misguided on the absolutes, but the quote you give does show the limits of King's understanding, which is what Emma is talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



...I guess my reaction to all that is a weary “so what?”

Emma’s entire diatribe against King was based pretty much entirely on the (erroneous) premise he was saying passive was never okay, asserting it as an absolute. That’s also the point of this thread, right? This thread was about rules, which are by definition absolute statements. With that in mind, the whole tangential tarring of Stephen King with an imaginary hypocrite brush...looks pretty silly and entirely irrelevant to the OP, in my opinion. 

Personally, I think I’ll pass on trying to assess the English language faculties of a bestselling author. I don’t have the slightest interest in “static passives”, I don’t think it’s either interesting or important to being a good writer. Presumably King doesn’t either as he does not mention them, as you point out. 

What I do know is reading On Writing helped me a lot when it came out. So as legitimate as these niggles may or may not be, I don’t see them as “potential flaws”. much less bad advice. I just don’t.


----------



## Aquilo (Aug 3, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> However, both forms of passive are inherently less active and exciting than an active verb.



Very much so! But passive is great, not just in fiction, but academic writing too, In fiction, it can keep a killer hidden, for research, it removes the human subject and focuses on the research. 



luckyscars said:


> ...I guess my reaction to all that is a weary “so what?".



Then I guess mine is: why post an extract, advise people to read it, then not expect them to have an opinion after you'd stated your opinion.

But I hear you on the weary part. You said you couldn't see how King was being an absolutist when it came to passives. And considering the thread is 'Do we really know the rules of good writing", it shows how some don't, and no -- I don't think you need to... unless you're an absolutist and trying to give advice on something you only know half the rule to. But if someone is giving advice on the writing, I'd like to think they should know this at least. And who knows, maybe King does, but the extract you provided doesn't support that, and I'm not into blind faith over whether something's important or not. We all learn the rules differently, we all trust our sources differently.


----------



## seigfried007 (Aug 3, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> Very much so! But passive is great, not just in fiction, but academic writing too, In fiction, it can keep a killer hidden, for research, it removes the human subject and focuses on the research.


Yup, yup, I had to unlearn a lot on writing to get through college with a science degree. Soooo many reports. All that science writing also taught me about absolutes. Everything's got to be kept vague-ish. "The results seem to indicate..." As absolutist as a lot of supposedly "science-minded" people get, actual scientific literature is not into that, and anything could be proven wrong or incomplete at a moment's notice. Hence, we hedge everything with passive voice and don't use absolutes. 


But there's really only one rule of writing:

*Write. *


----------



## Aquilo (Aug 4, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> But there's really only one rule of writing:
> 
> *Write. *



Aye, you can learn a million rules, but there's one element you either have or you don't, and that's the talent to pull all those rules together.


----------



## PiP (Aug 4, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> Aye, you can learn a million rules, but there's one element you either have or you don't, and that's the talent to pull all those rules together.



Amen to that!


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 4, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> However, both forms of passive are inherently less active and exciting than an active verb. Pretty much it boils down to the extermination of "to be" in all forms because they add extra words, slow things down, and don't "do anything." "To do" is more exciting than "to be." States of being aren't exciting (and that's basically what both forms of passive tense are, depending on how one reads them--as Aquilo showed).



First, you moved to a deeper level. The statement that there is something better about an active verb and action, I would agreed with that. Maybe there's exceptions, but I can't think of any. Of course, it's just one factor in considering how to write a sentence.

And I think you are saying that linking verbs ("is") have the same problem as passive verbs -- nothing's happening. I suggested that's how King thinks when he writers, and that would work well. But it's not how he defines passive. Or anyone else as far as I know.

So, good writing advice, you might think of a different word than "passive".


----------



## seigfried007 (Aug 4, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> First, you moved to a deeper level. The statement that there is something better about an active verb and action, I would agreed with that. Maybe there's exceptions, but I can't think of any. Of course, it's just one factor in considering how to write a sentence.
> 
> And I think you are saying that linking verbs ("is") have the same problem as passive verbs -- nothing's happening. I suggested that's how King thinks when he writers, and that would work well. But it's not how he defines passive. Or anyone else as far as I know.
> 
> So, good writing advice, you might think of a different word than "passive".


Took several years of French back in the day, but I can't remember the names for all the crazy verb tenses. This one had a fun name and is also used in English. I called it the "When tense". 



> Bob was cleaning his missile launcher when Shirley bust the door down.
> When Shirley bust the door down, Bob was cleaning his missile launcher.



 That's not passive--it's got another name. "Was" is still yet another word which might be conceivably excised if a writer's just got to get the word count down, but the "to be" is necessary for this sentence structure/verb tense. Both parties are "doing" as opposed to "having something done to them,"  so it's still an "active" tense, but the characters are acting simultaneously. One action is getting interrupted by another action.

Passive is the "be done" as opposed to the "do" tense. Something happened to the subject VS the subject did something. Doing is more exciting than having something done to you. The agency is left in some other character's ballpark when passive is used. If you're trying to slow the pace down, show passivity in a character, or put the emphasis on something which is happening to the character as opposed to who/what's doing it, or to break up sentence structure for reasons of adding variety, then passive can be a good choice. These are pretty rare exceptions to the "Use active verbs" advice though, and _they never have to be used_ anyway. In general, it's better to use active verbs wherever possible

The insidious example I wrote about earlier concerns WIP characters in an abusive relationship. So, if I want to insidiously characterize the passive partner, I could use more passive language constructions for him, and this would subtly put the emphasis on how passive he is, how things just happen to him because he lacks agency and control in his life. I can also stick him in as the direct object or object of a preposition because these likewise subtly emphasize his passive role in his own life and objectify him. Likewise, the active verbs and structures can be used to subtly emphasize the other character's role as the dominant, controlling one of the pair. 




> I was shot by him.  (passive, emphasis on I, active participant/shooter is object of a preposition and is thus less important)
> I was shot. (passive, emphasis on I, active participant not even mentioned)
> He shot me. (active, emphasis on shooter/active participant, I is relegated to a direct object)
> He shot. (active, emphasis solely on shooter, I not even mentioned and thus less important)




Advice often confuses "passive" with "the extermination of 'to be' forms." This is likely because those "wases" and "ises" aren't active verbs and slow the pace down. Most of them can be cleaned up to great effect, but not all of them can or should be cleaned up. It's all up to the needs of the story.  

I don't give a fat hairy expletive what King said or didn't say, or what he meant by "passive". That's taken over the whole thread seemingly, and I don't see a point to it. We're all standing around arguing about what one out of millions of writers said, like he's the Christ figure of writing and his advice has a hope of turning our sorry lives and livelihoods around, elevating our prose to some higher plane of being.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 4, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> Ok so I'm going to post this in an effort to try and get this thread back on track and out of the murky "Debate" category and back into the "Discussion" category.
> 
> 2) Now if I'm reading Terry's post correctly then they're saying that you must know the basic rules of writing first before you start to go off the rails with your own brand of "writing" otherwise your going to end up with a huge lump of coal when you could have had a nice shiny diamond. This is absolutely correct.



A chess-playing program wasn't taught it _anything _about the basic rules and strategies of chess. It just played against itself. And at the end of its learning, it played as if it still hadn't learned one of the basic principles of chess, one anyone would know and that everyone used.

But it beat everyone/everything. (Link) And some experts are now trying to play like the machine.

Impressionism is a classic case of not following the basic, well-accepted rule. So is high-jumping backwards. Didn't Steve Curry go against conventional wisdom?

The point is, it's possible for everyone to know and follow the rule, and yet the rule to be wrong.

What happens in writing when someone doesn't follow the rules very well and writes a best-seller apparently loved by its readers?

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

I don't know what you mean by the basic principles of writing. As far as I know, those rules have not been updated to handle the short paragraph. In my opinion, the well-known rules for writing a final dramatic conclusion are not enough to produce a good scene.

People disagree with me. Sometimes quite confidently. I think they support your goal of learning the basic principles of writing, though they probably mean their rules. I agree, you should learn the basic principles of writing. I mean my rules. Anyway, I have warned you.

There are rules that work really well, which is to say, almost all the time. Don't put a comma between your subject and your verb; put your main character in the final dramatic conclusion. Those are actually hard to find as advice, because everyone already does them.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 4, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> A chess-playing program wasn't taught it _anything _about the basic rules and strategies of chess. It just played against itself. And at the end of its learning, it played as if it still hadn't learned one of the basic principles of chess, one anyone would know and that everyone used.
> 
> But it beat everyone/everything. (Link) And some experts are now trying to play like the machine.



This has no relationship to humans writing for humans. The way a computer learns and processes information is not like a human mind, so there is nothing to correlate to here.



> Impressionism is a classic case of not following the basic, well-accepted rule. So is high-jumping backwards. Didn't Steve Curry go against conventional wisdom?
> 
> The point is, it's possible for everyone to know and follow the rule, and yet the rule to be wrong.



Thanks, you've made my point for me. The first impressionists were artists well schooled in classically produced art. They knew what they were doing -- and knew it well -- before establishing their own 'school' of art. Dick Fosbury (the first to use the 'Fosbury Flop') was a skilled high jumper before he developed his own style. No, Steph Curry didn't go against conventional wisdom; he shoots with the same technique he learned in his youth, he simply shoots from a longer range, more frequently than others and his hand-eye coordination is superior.





> What happens in writing when someone doesn't follow the rules very well and writes a best-seller apparently loved by its readers?



They win the lottery. Most of us need to work on our craft to get better.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 4, 2019)

Wild discussions on here!

I'll throw in my two cents: "good writing" is a subjective term. What's "good" to one reader is quite often "bad" to another. So it's kind of fruitless to search for a universal cheat code that'll check everyone's boxes. In my opinion, such an approach doesn't exist.

That said, the career writers who've found great success all seem to have carved out their own little corner of the literary world, when it comes to  dedicated readers. They know their target audience. They know what those readers want. They write for _them_, and them alone.

By that point, does it even matter if their writing lines up with some universal definition of "good writing"? I don't think it does.

On a related note: I think a lot of writers worry too much about the minutiae of the craft. Micro-level aspects of the art: like word choices, sentence structure, rhythm ... Readers, on the other hand, seem to focus more on macro-level things: characters, events. How it all made them _feel _...

If you can find a workable, sustainable balance between these two perspectives, I think you'll be on the right path. :encouragement:


----------



## PiP (Aug 5, 2019)

Kyle R said:


> On a related note: I think a lot of writers worry too much about the minutiae of the craft. Micro-level aspects of the art: like word choices, sentence structure, rhythm ... *Readers, on the other hand, seem to focus more on macro-level things: characters, events. How it all made them feel ...*



*^^ exactly ^^*


----------



## Aquilo (Aug 5, 2019)

Kyle R said:


> By that point, does it even matter if their writing lines up with some universal definition of "good writing"? I don't think it does.



I agree wholeheartedly. Writing's always subjective: someone's trash, another's priceless art collection and all that!



> On a related note: I think a lot of writers worry too much about the minutiae of the craft. Micro-level aspects of the art: like word choices, sentence structure, rhythm ... Readers, on the other hand, seem to focus more on macro-level things: characters, events. How it all made them _feel _...



On the whole, yeah, but they will notice if it's not following their version of good writing! I had one reader being a little disgruntled with me using 'mom' in mine. I'm UK, and the reader was US. He said I shouldn't be using US usage in an English setting: a good point on the whole, but the issue there is that some areas of the West Midlands have been using 'mom' since the great vowel shift here (between 1350-1600s), and it's where its thought 'mom' migrated over to America. Mom to me is natural usage, with 'mum' and 'mummy' being the... hmm, more upper-class and soft-lad approach. Using mummy where I come from will get you a few smirks and eye rolls.

Then another debate saw one reader say I shouldn't be using 'that' to refer to a human: the asshole that lived over there. 'Who' is preferred. 'Who' may well be preferred in a grammar reference where you're humanizing, but if I want to dehumanize the asshole and use 'that' as I would for an animal or innate object, then that's an option for me. 

But because there are so many changes from grammar system to grammar system, it makes the rules themselves very subjective, so for sanities sake, you can't worry too much about it. At best all you can do is stick to where the characters are from, then listen to a good editor when it comes to the finer nuances need for the market and house style. Sometimes the house style of a publisher will break away from the rules in order to get the writing down on-page, and that brings in a whole new argument for the sharp-eyed reader.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 5, 2019)

Hi Aquilo. I did not expect you to agree with verbs coming in two types, active and passive.

You note that "she was married" could be passive when "was married" is the verb, and when "married" is an adjective and the verb is just "was", you called it stative passive (along with many but not all linguists).

What about


> She was old.



If that verb is either active or passive, it has to be static passive. Did you want to say that?

If no, there is the problem that you can't tell whether the verb is passive or active without looking at the sentence. Linguists seem comfortable with that, but I think not comfortable calling that active. If yes, King's "The meeting's at seven" would be static passive.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 5, 2019)

Kyle R said:


> Wild discussions on here!
> 
> I'll throw in my two cents: "good writing" is a subjective term. What's "good" to one reader is quite often "bad" to another. So it's kind of fruitless to search for a universal cheat code that'll check everyone's boxes. In my opinion, such an approach doesn't exist.
> 
> ...



Hi Kyle. I would have agreed more enthusiastically before I started studying punctuation and grammar. I was surprised at the quality of the punctuation and grammar in Harry Potter -- I had assumed it was just a good story. And that happened to me again and again as I looked at successful books, include _Anne of Green Gables_, and Hammet. I can't defend my impression, but it was as if, in order to write a best seller, you had to have punctuation, grammar, and word choice that was easy to understand and best brought out your story.

To me, King is friendly to read. He does that better than anyone I know. (I felt like I was fighting with Patterson.) I'm not a horror person, but I had the impression that King's stories were nothing special. I recently reread the start of Carrie and I was awed by the quality of the writing. The part I was reading (High school girl gets teased) seemed cliched and overdone (at least to my modern ear), but the writing overwhelmed that.

At the level of writing advice, it's going to be the same. How the writer handles suspense, surprise, character, awesome moments, and so on and so on.

This too leaves open what counts as "good", "skills", "mechanics of the craft", etc.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 5, 2019)

Hi Aquilo. I did not expect you to agree with verbs coming in two types, active and passive.

You note that "she was married" could be passive when "was married" is the verb, and when "married" is an adjective and the verb is just "was", you called it stative passive (along with many but not all linguists).

What about


> She was old.



If that is either active or passive, it has to be static passive. Did you want to say that?

If no, there is the problem that you can't tell whether the verb is passive or active without looking at the sentence. Linguists seem comfortable with that, but I think not comfortable calling that active.

If yes, King's "The meeting's at seven" would be static passive.

Thanks.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 5, 2019)

None of this grammatical hair-splitting is going to make anyone a better writer.


----------



## Aquilo (Aug 5, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> If no, there is the problem that you can't tell whether the verb is passive or active without looking at the sentence. Linguists seem comfortable with that, but I think not comfortable calling that active. If yes, King's "The meeting's at seven" would be static passive.



I'm a little lost here, Emma. It's to do with passive voice and the was -ed construction. She was married in 1988 (passive voice, was -ed construction: she got married in 1988): she was married in 1988 (still the was -ed passive construction, but showing a state: she was married througout 1988: a stative passive construction). She was old... 'was' here is a copular verb, linking the subject to a predicate.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 5, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> 'was' here is a copular verb,



Oh, god! Not another sex thread!?!?!?!


----------



## seigfried007 (Aug 5, 2019)

Terry D said:


> Oh, god! Not another sex thread!?!?!?!



Brace yourself for some_ hot_ conjunction action and _copular_ verbs, buddy, 'cause this thread is _definitely_ going there. Matter of fact, it's been there for whole pages now and is chock full of fancy Grammarian intercourse.


----------



## Newman (Aug 6, 2019)

AdrianBraysy said:


> The more I read about how to write fiction, the more I have become convinced that there are no rules. Everyone seems to disagree with everyone else.
> 
> Syd Field claims that the archetypal story structure takes place in three acts, with two plot points and a midpoint.
> 
> ...



I guess what you have to do is find your own way.

However, I do think that it is waay easier if you allow yourself to apply some consistency, for example, always assume character change, journey etc.


----------



## Bayview (Aug 6, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> ...in order to write a best seller, you had to have punctuation, grammar, and word choice that was easy to understand and best brought out your story....(I felt like I was fighting with Patterson.)



It seems like you're kind of providing your own counter-argument, here? I mean, Patterson (or whomever is using the name) writes best sellers, right? So whatever it is that you're finding hard to read in his work hasn't gotten in the way of his success.

I like Kyle's point about successful authors finding _their _readers and writing in the style those readers enjoy. Trying to write a book that everyone will like is a fool's game.


----------



## Rojack79 (Aug 6, 2019)

Bayview said:


> It seems like you're kind of providing your own counter-argument, here? I mean, Patterson (or whomever is using the name) writes best sellers, right? So whatever it is that you're finding hard to read in his work hasn't gotten in the way of his success.
> 
> I like Kyle's point about successful authors finding _their _readers and writing in the style those readers enjoy. Trying to write a book that everyone will like is a fool's game.



Exactly! That's actually one reason I struggled to write for the longest time. I couldn't A) Narrow down my idea to just one or two genre and B) because of that I really had a hard time with finding my target audience. Over the past few years I've found both.

My genre is of my own creation because all of the others wouldn't really fit. My story is a Christian Medieval Western Fantasy. Simple and plain enough to work for me and broad enough to fit into nearly any publishers definition. The second part was the audience. I've seen very few of any stories that caters to the furry community and I find that sad because after reading quite a few of there stories I have to admit I was really impressed with the talent these awesome artists have. They are severely underrated and misjudged on so many levels.

 So I'm going to become a mainstream writer of new fiction hopefully sometime soon. With a full time job 5 days a week and virtually no time to myself on my days off I'm currently struggling to make ends meet. I just got a new computer set up after my old one died on my so now I can start work on the actual writing this Thursday.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 6, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> I'm a little lost here, Emma. It's to do with passive voice and the was -ed construction. She was married in 1988 (passive voice, was -ed construction: she got married in 1988): she was married in 1988 (still the was -ed passive construction, but showing a state: she was married througout 1988: a stative passive construction). She was old... 'was' here is a copular verb, linking the subject to a predicate.



Well, you agreed with "Verbs come in two types, active and passive."

So I asked if "The necklace was old" was active or passive, and you said it was copular? That answer makes sense by itself, but it implies there are three kinds of verbs, active, passive, and copular.

Resolution?

I know this seems anti-climactical.


----------



## Irwin (Aug 6, 2019)

There's one rule that you can never break: make it interesting.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 6, 2019)

I think there’s probably some pretty rigid rules in terms of general structure, right? Not sure how anybody can say there isn’t. 

I mean, you can’t exactly start most stories with a denouement and expect it to work. You can’t start most stories with twenty different characters entering the scene at the same time, talking about things that the audience hasn’t off a clue about, and expect that to work. You can’t deus ex machina constantly and expect readers to be satisfied. You can’t have ten different protagonists and zero or ten thousand primary antagonists or ninety seven romantic subplots in most stories. 

The thing is, all of this can be easily “learned” through reading and writing anyway.


----------



## ironpony (Aug 6, 2019)

Irwin said:


> There's one rule that you can never break: make it interesting.



It seems like all the rules have been broken, and can be successfully as long as it's interesting, yes.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 7, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I think there’s probably some pretty rigid rules in terms of general structure, right? Not sure how anybody can say there isn’t.
> 
> I mean, you can’t exactly start most stories with a denouement and expect it to work. You can’t start most stories with twenty different characters entering the scene at the same time, talking about things that the audience hasn’t off a clue about, and expect that to work. You can’t deus ex machina constantly and expect readers to be satisfied. You can’t have ten different protagonists and zero or ten thousand primary antagonists or ninety seven romantic subplots in most stories.
> 
> The thing is, all of this can be easily “learned” through reading and writing anyway.



There have been a number of successful books which have totally screwed with structure; _House of Leaves_, _Time's Arrow_, _Cloud Atlas_, _Infinite Jest_, and _Catch 22_ are just a few. Hell, there was even a book written in which the author never used the letter 'e' -- _Gadsby_ by Ernest Vincent Wright.

And don't forget Stephen King's, Delores Claiborne in which there are no chapter breaks and just one scene break.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 7, 2019)

Terry D said:


> There have been a number of successful books which have totally screwed with structure; _House of Leaves_, _Time's Arrow_, _Cloud Atlas_, _Infinite Jest_, and _Catch 22_ are just a few. Hell, there was even a book written in which the author never used the letter 'e' -- _Gadsby_ by Ernest Vincent Wright.
> 
> And don't forget Stephen King's, Delores Claiborne in which there are no chapter breaks and just one scene break.



Sure, hence the repeated use of the qualifier “most stories”, not “all stories”. 

Point stands that most of us could not write a book like House Of Leaves to a remotely publishable standard if our lives depended on it. 

A lot of what happens in these kinds of discussions is the tiny minority of exceptional cases that work get freely used to prop up completely bogus arguments: that the established standards and conventions aren’t useful or (worse still) shouldn’t be mastered first. 

I know that’s not your position, but it’s often an unintended consequence of bringing up examples of exceptions in these kinds of threads. It’s like saying that motorcycle stunt riding isn’t inherently life threatening because Evel Knievel survived it.


----------



## Bayview (Aug 7, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Sure, hence the repeated use of the qualifier “most stories”, not “all stories”.
> 
> Point stands that most of us could not write a book like House Of Leaves to a remotely publishable standard if our lives depended on it.
> 
> ...



I feel like you're working with a much looser understanding of the word "rule" than I am, and/or a different understanding of "you can't", or maybe just of "you". And, sure, to some extent that's just a semantic issue, but I feel like on a writers' site, semantic issues aren't completely unimportant.

And you seem to recognize this when you rephrase things in your Evel Knievel analogy. You don't write, "it's like saying you can't jump over 14 buses," because you recognize, in the analogy, that this is an overstatement. So you write something more nuanced with the "inherently life threatening" bit. The writing equivalent, it seems to me, would be "inherently more difficult," or "likely to create serious challenges" or something.

I know you're taking a stand for bold, absolute language, but... I'm not really sure why you're doing that.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 7, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Sure, hence the repeated use of the qualifier “most stories”, not “all stories”.
> 
> Point stands that most of us could not write a book like House Of Leaves to a remotely publishable standard if our lives depended on it.
> 
> ...



Sure. We can all agree that most short stories and novels are written in a more or less standard manner, and I think it is important for new writers to understand -- as in know, practice, and gain skill using -- those standards (rules) before they trot off and start splashing their iconoclastic styles all over the self-published bookshelves. But, if this thread isn't about examples of skilled writers bending, or even breaking, those standards, then where is the lesson to be learned? Where is the "completely bogus argument" in that?

My point has always been: There are reasons for the existence of what people tend to call rules for writing and new writers should learn how to apply those before they start ignoring them. Examples of writers who have broken the rules well are invaluable when hammering home the point that the authors who succeed at inverting the norms first learned to effectively apply the norms they eventually capsized. 

Nothing we say here is going to stop most new writers from doing what they want. From banging out poorly crafted drivel and uploading it to Amazon, to vapid and pretentious linguistic reinvention and obtuse hair-splitting. All we can do is try to provide a reasonable counter-point and hope that position resonates with a couple of readers who might still be salvaged. To that end I'm happy to talk about the exceptions that prove the rules.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 7, 2019)

Bayview said:


> I feel like you're working with a much looser understanding of the word "rule" than I am, and/or a different understanding of "you can't", or maybe just of "you". And, sure, to some extent that's just a semantic issue, but I feel like on a writers' site, semantic issues aren't completely unimportant.
> 
> And you seem to recognize this when you rephrase things in your Evel Knievel analogy. You don't write, "it's like saying you can't jump over 14 buses," because you recognize, in the analogy, that this is an overstatement. So you write something more nuanced with the "inherently life threatening" bit. The writing equivalent, it seems to me, would be "inherently more difficult," or "likely to create serious challenges" or something.
> 
> I know you're taking a stand for bold, absolute language, but... I'm not really sure why you're doing that.



I don’t think I am using absolutist language beyond saying what seems to be common sense here. Though if not I would be happy to discuss.

Let’s be charitable and say that 10% of book sales are in books that are structurally a-typical in the sense Terry describes. I think it’s a lot less than that, but let’s go with 10%. That means 90% of book sales are, at least structurally, basically some version of “mainstream”. 

If we apply the 90% rule to any other business it wouldn’t even be a discussion. If 90% of commercially viable coffee houses use Nescafe instant coffee to make a cappuccino instead of a espresso machine, that doesn’t prove absolutely that it’s impossible to be in business making an unconventional (and quite gross sounding IMO) cappuccino. It doesn’t prove absolutely anything. What it does is indicate risk. A lot of risk. And risk isn’t usually a good thing. Certainly uncalculated risk is not. Nobody would blithely be recommending addingto risk.

I see a lot of uncalculated risk in writing, do you? A lot of winging it. I think that’s a problem. 

This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take calculated risks when you believe in something, and I did not say that.   I’m sure Stephen King probably had his sleepless nights over Dolores Claiborne’s unconventionality. In that case, he was able to pull it off - his hunch worked . But for every example of a great author sticking it to the man, there are far more examples of deluded fools falling over their feet, so when people want to downplay the numerous failures and focus on the few successes simply because it serves their interests (or delusions) to do so I do get snarky. And yes, then I start calling crap “crap”, which is technically quite absolutist I guess. Sorry not sorry?

I also really hate this constant need to semantically equivocate on here. Like, yes there are exceptions, yes absolutist language is seldom accurate when taken literally...and so what? Those exceptions don’t apply to me and I don’t actually believe they apply to anybody I would ever interact with...so what use is it to say “well sometimes it might work” every other sentence exactly? Who benefits from that “clarification”? Especially when so often that little inch gets misunderstood and promptly taken for a mile? 

At a certain point, I suggest clarity of intent becomes more important than technical accuracy or semantic dueling. There are plenty of other, probably nicer, people around who can make Bill Writer believe he can write his gibberish and be successful because James Joyce did it. But I don’t believe that.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 7, 2019)

Terry D said:


> Sure. We can all agree that most short stories and novels are written in a more or less standard manner, and I think it is important for new writers to understand -- as in know, practice, and gain skill using -- those standards (rules) before they trot off and start splashing their iconoclastic styles all over the self-published bookshelves. But, if this thread isn't about examples of skilled writers bending, or even breaking, those standards, then where is the lesson to be learned? Where is the "completely bogus argument" in that?
> 
> My point has always been: There are reasons for the existence of what people tend to call rules for writing and new writers should learn how to apply those before they start ignoring them. Examples of writers who have broken the rules well are invaluable when hammering home the point that the authors who succeed at inverting the norms first learned to effectively apply the norms they eventually capsized.
> 
> Nothing we say here is going to stop most new writers from doing what they want. From banging out poorly crafted drivel and uploading it to Amazon, to vapid and pretentious linguistic reinvention and obtuse hair-splitting. All we can do is try to provide a reasonable counter-point and hope that position resonates with a couple of readers who might still be salvaged. To that end I'm happy to talk about the exceptions that prove the rules.



We are in vigorous agreement, then.


----------



## Bayview (Aug 7, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I don’t think I am using absolutist language beyond saying what seems to be common sense here. Though if not I would be happy to discuss.



I'm focusing mostly on "can't". Which you used repeatedly, and which seems absolute, to me. 



> I also really hate this constant need to semantically equivocate on here. Like, yes there are exceptions, yes absolutist language is seldom accurate when taken literally...and so what? Those exceptions don’t apply to me and I don’t actually believe they apply to anybody I would ever interact with...so what use is it to say “well sometimes it might work” every other sentence exactly? Who benefits from that “clarification”? Especially when so often that little inch gets misunderstood and promptly taken for a mile?
> 
> At a certain point, I suggest clarity of intent becomes more important than technical accuracy or semantic dueling. There are plenty of other, probably nicer, people around who can make Bill Writer believe he can write his gibberish and be successful because James Joyce did it. But I don’t believe that.



I think we're in agreement on the middle portion of your post (the part I cut out of my quote). I agree that most coffee places won't do well if they use Nescafe and I agree that most writers won't do well if they break "the rules".

I think the semantic argument, on my part, comes because it's so easy to disprove an absolute. You say "can't", someone else says, "this person did" and then your "can't" is inaccurate. So this mythic new writer whose heart and soul we're fighting to protect gets the message that what you said is inaccurate and therefore "you can". I don't think it takes that many more words to say, "Some people can, but it's super, super hard and I'd strongly advise against it."


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 7, 2019)

Bayview said:


> I'm focusing mostly on "can't". Which you used repeatedly, and which seems absolute, to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I’d be really interested to know exactly which statement(s) you are referring to. Because I think I’ve usually been saying “most”, in which case the word “most” as opposed to “all” should accomplish what you are asking right?


----------



## Smith (Aug 7, 2019)

Do we know the rules of good writing? If we're talking about spelling and grammar and conventional language structure, yes. This is what facilitates understanding between the conveyor and recipient.

Otherwise:

Do we know the rules of good story-telling? Yes.

Do we know the guidelines of good story-telling? Yes.

Are these rules and guidelines two separate categories? Yes.


----------



## Aquilo (Aug 8, 2019)

I think that for the 'I break the rules'' debate, the point they're making is that originality sells, nothing more. They don't say copy me or do as I do, but a general: find your own original voice. Most authors won't see any sales. That's mostly because their style reflects a thousand or so other authors out there, and that's where the issues lay. You don't have to be flamboyant and flout the rules like ee commings in poetry who's renowned for using lowercase etc when capitals should be used, just write something with soul. And its where the rule breakers can get you thinking along that line, so it's always good to see who does what and where. I like to see originality because of that.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 8, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> I think that for the 'I break the rules'' debate, the point they're making is that originality sells, nothing more. They don't say copy me or do as I do, but a general: find your own original voice. Most authors won't see any sales. That's mostly because their style reflects a thousand or so other authors out there, and that's where the issues lay. You don't have to be flamboyant and flout the rules like ee commings in poetry who's renowned for using lowercase etc when capitals should be used, just write something with soul. And its where the rule breakers can get you thinking along that line, so it's always good to see who does what and where. I like to see originality because of that.



I think part of the problem is when people hear the word 'rules' they assume (sometimes justifiably so) it's in reference to the imaginative qualities of their story more than the nuts and bolts, so to speak.

Rules - or we can call them conventions, if that's more digestible to folks - definitely matter in some areas. Most obviously in spelling, punctuation and grammar (unless you're trying to be extremely progressive, but as discussed that's a big fat risk) but also in structure and execution. 

We could say, for instance, it is usually not a good idea to introduce twenty characters into the opening scene at the same time. We could say it's usually not a good idea to end a story with 'suddenly it was all a dream'. We could say that the climax should not happen in chapter 2. We could say that deus ex machina at the end of every problem is not a good idea. We could say that cliches should be avoided - X should not mark the spot, the damsel should not be in distress, the first kiss should not take place on a beach at sunset. We could say this stuff because we can refer to the vast majority of selling books and see these sharp contrasts between what 'works' and 'what doesn't'. To that extent, this then becomes our 'rules'. 

I think it's really important that everybody knows - and I think most people with half a brain do - that rules can still be broken in writing, and to some extent its inevitable. That saying something is a rule doesn't mean it's off-limits, it just means that it comes with a lot of risk. I think it's also important to point out that 'rules' do change over time. A couple hundred years ago many of the things I put in the previous paragraph were entirely acceptable, desirable even. So, 'rules' is not suggesting of a sacred cow. It doesn't mean that things cannot be changed by anybody at any time to great success. It more speaks to an order of probability.

Now, as far as ideas - settings, characters, plot motifs, message - I don't think there are any rules at all. I think it's absolutely possible to have a story that feels entirely original but structurally and technically is extremely conventional. Actually, I think that's what most bestsellers are. Books like Golding's Lord Of The Flies or Orwell's 1984 or even Harry Potter are extremely original in terms of their imaginative content, but are written like any standard novel of their day and have pretty standard structures. Personally, I'd rate their 'originality' over the baffling gibberish of most supposedly avante garde 'rule breaking' writers I have seen, but others may have different opinions. Ultimately there's no accounting for taste.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 8, 2019)

This thread jumped the shark about 5 pages back.


----------



## Ken11 (Aug 9, 2019)

Terry D said:


> Sure. We can all agree that most short stories and novels are written in a more or less standard manner, and I think it is important for new writers to understand -- as in know, practice, and gain skill using -- those standards (rules) before they trot off and start splashing their iconoclastic styles all over the self-published bookshelves. But, if this thread isn't about examples of skilled writers bending, or even breaking, those standards, then where is the lesson to be learned? Where is the "completely bogus argument" in that?
> 
> My point has always been: There are reasons for the existence of what people tend to call rules for writing and new writers should learn how to apply those before they start ignoring them. Examples of writers who have broken the rules well are invaluable when hammering home the point that the authors who succeed at inverting the norms first learned to effectively apply the norms they eventually capsized.
> 
> Nothing we say here is going to stop most new writers from doing what they want. From banging out poorly crafted drivel and uploading it to Amazon, to vapid and pretentious linguistic reinvention and obtuse hair-splitting. All we can do is try to provide a reasonable counter-point and hope that position resonates with a couple of readers who might still be salvaged. To that end I'm happy to talk about the exceptions that prove the rules.



Are you saying that Amazon should ban trash and low brow literature? If yes, than you are being a bit pompous and non-liberal. Although I know where you're coming from.  You need more free Amazon space for selling of your books


----------



## Terry D (Aug 9, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> Are you saying that Amazon should ban trash and low brow literature? If yes, than you are being a bit pompous and non-liberal. Although I know where you're coming from.  You need more free Amazon space for selling of your books



Where did I say anything about what Amazon should do? I only stated the obvious, that much of what is self published there is total crap because the 'authors' are too lazy to work at their craft. I'm also not worried about "more free Amazon space", competition doesn't worry me. The cloud is a big place.

If believing someone should hone their craft before asking others to pay for it is pompous, then so be it. Maybe our chosen field needs more pompous people? I doubt I'll lose any sleep over being considered "non-liberal" by a stranger.


----------



## Aquilo (Aug 9, 2019)

Terry D said:


> I only stated the obvious, that much of what is self-published there is total crap because the 'authors' are too lazy to work at their craft.



From online magazines to epublishers to publishing companies in general, they pump out crap too. This isn't just a self-pub issue that sees substandard writing published. Nowadays you have publishing companies start up that have no formal experience in publishing/editing/proofreading. Those who should know better lead those who don't yet know better. 

But it brings up a good point! For god's sake accept that you won't know everything and are open to screwing up. I'm not a proofreader: I have a blind spot for messing up my to and too usage, along with other little gritty sods like that. When it comes to Macro level, that can vary on each story. I will miss small continuity glitches, no matter how many times I sweep it. That's when I know it's time to hand over to someone else to look at.


----------



## Ken11 (Aug 9, 2019)

Terry D said:


> Where did I say anything about what Amazon should do? I only stated the obvious, that much of what is self published there is total crap because the 'authors' are too lazy to work at their craft. I'm also not worried about "more free Amazon space", competition doesn't worry me. The cloud is a big place.
> 
> If believing someone should hone their craft before asking others to pay for it is pompous, then so be it. Maybe our chosen field needs more pompous people? I doubt I'll lose any sleep over being considered "non-liberal" by a stranger.



I was (partially) joking.  You can't joke without being partially sincere. Forgive me. And, you are a great guy, who has a kind of a sol invictus avatar.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 9, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> From online magazines to epublishers to publishing companies in general, they pump out crap too. This isn't just a self-pub issue that sees substandard writing published. Nowadays you have publishing companies start up that have no formal experience in publishing/editing/proofreading. Those who should know better lead those who don't yet know better.



I agree it's not just a self-pub issue, but in my opinion it mostly is.

The quality of traditionally published stories, even if it can often be very poor, still for me doesn’t quite plumb the depths of what I routinely come across in the self-pub world. At least not on the same scale of frequency. I find odds are if I pick a random self-pubbed story and compare it to a random trade published story, even if the 'publisher' isn't a big one, the self-pubbed one is more likely to be the worse of the two.

I attribute this to the simple fact even if the people setting up the online magazines and anthologies can be woefully incompetent at selecting and editing work (and I definitely take that point, believe me) at least the system of traditional, submissions-and-query-based publishing usually involves somebody else who is impartial reading the work in advance other than the author themselves. At least it usually involves some sense of competitiveness and selectivity because of the sheer numbers of submissions for each call. At least it involves the hard lessons of rejection. 

It is entirely possible and quite easy (and more of less free) for me to, right now and in the space of mere minutes, upload and publish something to Amazon Create Space or whatever that I wrote while heavily drunk last night, a work which nobody has read and which isn’t just bad writing but actually barely comprehensible, at which point I can call myself a “published writer”. That's not healthy.

But I have seen people do it. Hell, there are people on this very forum who do it, either because they don't know better or simply don't care. We just live in a culture where a lot of people want big things to happen *now* - this sentiment is heavily prevalent on any discussion. They don’t want to do the work, they don’t want to learn the deeper workings of the craft, they don’t want to start small and work their way up, they don't want to jump the hoops. I'll accept that may not be most, never mind all, writers. But it’s enough.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 9, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> ...who has a kind of a sol invictus avatar.



Total solar eclipse as seen from Arrow Rock, Missouri Aug. 21st, 2017. More photos available here.


----------



## JohnCalliganWrites (Aug 9, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I agree it's not just a self-pub issue, but in my opinion it mostly is.
> 
> The quality of traditionally published stories, even if it can often be very poor, still for me doesn’t quite plumb the depths of what I routinely come across in the self-pub world.



I know what you mean, but I do like that Amazon doesn't try to enforce their tastes on everyone too much (outside of romance vs. erotica and preference for short / often releases). I went to a workshop last year where a guy took the mic and talked about how Dan Brown is trash for 20 minutes, which seems off given that I'd love to write stories people like as much as his. Other than getting past gate keepers and getting good reviews, what else makes something "good writing," at least in pop culture? It seems like taste is king, and the "look inside" feature means every shopper is basically the editor curating their own experience.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 9, 2019)

JohnCalliganWrites said:


> I know what you mean, but I do like that Amazon doesn't try to enforce their tastes on everyone too much (outside of romance vs. erotica and preference for short / often releases). I went to a workshop last year where a guy took the mic and talked about how Dan Brown is trash for 20 minutes, which seems off given that I'd love to write stories people like as much as his. Other than getting past gate keepers and getting good reviews, what else makes something "good writing," at least in pop culture? It seems like taste is king, and the "look inside" feature means every shopper is basically the editor curating their own experience.



Just to be clear I have nothing against self-publishing. Some of the best books I have read have been self-published. Some of the worst have been traditionally published. The concept itself is a good one. It essentially levels the playing field.

The point is just that the days when you could choose a book and know that it would meet a certain standard simply because it exists as a book as opposed to a word document are gone - as is the idea that being a 'published author' said something about you as a writer. These days having a book published on Amazon often says more about the author's self-confidence/ego than it does about their actual ability.

The look inside feature is definitely helpful at weeding out the real stinkers, you're right, but as it usually only gives you the first few pages it says nothing about the bigger picture. It's a slight improvement on reading the blurb on the back jacket. Additionally, I also personally feel as a consumer of books it's not my job to be an 'editor curating my own experience' any more than its my job as a consumer of food to make sure there's no salmonella in the chicken: The producer of the product should be responsible for making sure a basic level of quality is there (proper formatting, correct SPaG, a story that makes sense), not the reader. Having a mass of junk out there isn't the end of the world but it does mean the consumer has to work harder. From a basic capitalism standpoint, that's not a good thing.

We're getting off-topic here, but I guess if I had my druthers I'd keep self-publishing more or less the way it is but have some form of vetting: A system where in order to charge money for their work the author has to compulsorily pay Amazon or whoever a one-time fee to perform basic proofreading and editing services prior to releasing seems reasonable and would likely deter most people from publishing for the sake of it. For those who just want their book online, that's fine, they can keep doing that, but you shouldn't be allowed to charge. If you have to pay to play an accordion in a subway station, I don't think its unreasonable to require reasonable payment to publish books you intend to make money from.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 10, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> We're getting off-topic here, but I guess if I had my druthers I'd keep self-publishing more or less the way it is but have some form of vetting: A system where in order to charge money for their work the author has to compulsorily pay Amazon or whoever a one-time fee to perform basic proofreading and editing services prior to releasing seems reasonable and would likely deter most people from publishing for the sake of it. For those who just want their book online, that's fine, they can keep doing that, but you shouldn't be allowed to charge. If you have to pay to play an accordion in a subway station, I don't think its unreasonable to require reasonable payment to publish books you intend to make money from.



On the one hand, I agree: without some sort of quality control, the self-publishing industry feels at risk of becoming a quagmire, as a writer doesn't _have_ to do anything other than click "Publish now!" with their latest story. I love the idea of wide open doors, but sometimes the doors seem _too_ wide, allowing any and everything through.

On the other hand, most self-published authors are (I'd like to believe) trying to put out quality work. At least the ones who take themselves seriously. It seems a bit unfair to shove a publishing fee down their throat, especially when earnings as a self-published author are already sparse enough. (Also considering that many self-published authors already _do_ hire their own freelance editors, out of pocket.)

The more I think about it, the more I'm forced to admit: most readers stick with what they know and like. Certain publications. Specific authors. The same favorite imprints.

Sure, there may be thousands of self-published titles in a specific genre—but the majority of the sales are funneling right into that tiny handful of big-name authors at the top. The rest are, more or less, ignored.


----------



## Aquilo (Aug 10, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> It is entirely possible and quite easy (and more of less free) for me to, right now and in the space of mere minutes, upload and publish something to Amazon Create Space or whatever that I wrote while heavily drunk last night, a work which nobody has read and which isn’t just bad writing but actually barely comprehensible, at which point I can call myself a “published writer”. That's not healthy.



A drunk upload? I'd like to read that from you!  But Amazon has put measures in place lately. If you get tagged for having grammar issues as you are uploading, it won't publish. I got tagged on my last one because I'd used Welsh, and well, lol, it's not English. You have to review each grammar issue. The only issue with this is that's like using Office 365's grammar and spell-check. It's based purely on standard English, so if you have slang and colloquial usage, it can take you a while to ignore each issue. Readers are also hot for reporting bad grammar. You can get taken down for it.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Aug 10, 2019)

> Readers are also hot for reporting bad grammar. You can get taken down for it.


I had this mental image of the guy in black with the silver six guns coming out on the dusty street to 'Take you down' for your bad grammar. If only …


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 10, 2019)

Kyle R said:


> On the other hand, most self-published authors are (I'd like to believe) trying to put out quality work. At least the ones who take themselves seriously. It seems a bit unfair to shove a publishing fee down their throat, especially when earnings as a self-published author are already sparse enough. (Also considering that many self-published authors already _do_ hire their own freelance editors, out of pocket.)



I'm just spit-balling here. I'm sure much more knowledgeable people than I have discussed this at length and there are *reasons* behind the decision.

I will say I don't actually agree with the argument that charging access fees to self-pub is unfair. By that same logic, it's unfair that minimum-wage workers have to buy gas or bus passes just to get themselves to work.

I do agree the idea of being out of pocket before you even get started is arguably unfair on a philosophical level, but for better or for worse it is pretty ubiquitous these days. I feel that, provided the motivation behind those costs being incurred is reasonable and results in a healthier market, I don't see it as necessarily problematic. I can't think of many income generating avenues that can be realized without any access cost whatsoever. Even a kid who washes cars has to buy soap and wax, y'know?

I am not saying it should cost hundreds or thousands to publish a book. That would be awful. I'm just saying I don't think it's unreasonable to charge, I don't know, $50? $100? Whatever is needed to cover the costs of basic proofreading (and encourage thoughtfulness behind the decision to publish) until the robots can run the show.



Aquilo said:


> A drunk upload? I'd like to read that from you!  But Amazon has put measures in place lately. If you get tagged for having grammar issues as you are uploading, it won't publish. I got tagged on my last one because I'd used Welsh, and well, lol, it's not English. You have to review each grammar issue. The only issue with this is that's like using Office 365's grammar and spell-check. It's based purely on standard English, so if you have slang and colloquial usage, it can take you a while to ignore each issue. Readers are also hot for reporting bad grammar. You can get taken down for it.



That's really interesting to know - thank you!


----------



## Aquilo (Aug 10, 2019)

Olly Buckle said:


> I had this mental image of the guy in black with the silver six guns coming out on the dusty street to 'Take you down' for your bad grammar. If only …



Lol, it can be at times. Just inch over to Goodreads. Most posts turn into an episode of _Your Grammar Sucks_ from jacksfilms, maybe rightly so in some cases!


----------



## Newman (Aug 13, 2019)

Everyone loves a "rules" debate.


----------

