The Rules of Writing

SecondCircle

Sin Cara
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Posts
1,410
"You have all these rules, and you think they'll save you...."

This... isn't meant as any sort of mandate on how writing should or shouldn't be or be done. Quite the contrary actually. The views expressed are observations by this poster, no more. Nothing is meant as "absolute" or necessarily literal. There's no actual inquiry here, just a bit of a musing, a pondering I guess.

Along our path of writing, as we develope and learn, there seems like there's this unattainable golden idol we claw for. That question about "how to write" or write well. And I'm sure most can agree that there's no single answer, nor a particularly easy answer that can blanket everyone. Writing usually stems from innate talent and passion for the craft, and no two writers are really identical. Everyone has their own methods, their own style, approach, and literary flavor.

Here enter the "Rules of Writing". Chances are, we've heard this stuff a billion times over. These are those snippets of advice, those approaches handed down. Sometimes they come in the form of those "how to" books. Other examples pop up time and again. They are too many to list, but several come to mind.

Stephen King has his little "Kill Your Darlings" advice. There's the timeless "Show don't Tell" thingy that works well nowadays. There's the Dialog tag debate, with countless offerings of how it "should" be done. Some may tell you that Dialog itself doesn't tell the whole tale, that it cannot convey a story in its entirety as well as exposition and vice verca.

Even grammar and punctuation isn't entirely safe. Not have tryin ta; say dat you kin, like, write' like this n stuff and its OK and will make it out their in righting world. That's not what I'm saying, but some exceptions exist where the unorthodox is accepted in the given story.

Many "rules" (not literal) bleed into Lit. We see them as forum topics from time to time, and the questions are very valid, and the discussions that come forward as a result can be very productive and insightful. We even have several "rules" that seem to fit at Lit. Keep away from measurements and cup sizes. Don't describe characters in detail, let readers use more imagination. Only include what drives the story or is relevant to the story (which is quite an obscure bit subject to opinion). Short reads are better. Long reads are better.

Well, you get the point. There's a lot of "this way" and "that way". Some of it is just differing opinions and what works best for each person. Other times it seems like a majority supports one "rule" as a way that works.

And yet, most will constantly arrive and the usual conclusion, the one I always arrive at. In the words of Barbossa "they're more like guidelines than actual rules."
I don't think anything is really absolute when it comes to the craft.

I've seen almost everything go both ways. What works for me? Not interpreting everything so literally. Afterall these "rules" aren't really rules are they? Moderation and personal judgement are what I use. I know others do too. I take any advice or observation of what can work, and I keep it as a tool for consideration. In other words, I just learn as I go and do what makes sense for me and my writing.

Show don't tell? Yeah... but not always, not completely. People throughout time have done that in reverse and produced great stories. Cup sizes or not? Either way can work. Kill your darlings? It can have a great effect, but it's not a commandment. Write what you know? Yes and No.

... I guess where I'm going is where I always tend to end up. Listen to all opinions and advice, and take the good with the bad. Use what works for You. Experiment. Read that "How to" book if you like, but know it's not a holy book. Never strictly adhere to one side of something all the time. There is no one way to write well. There's billions. There is no mandate. There are no "rules" (that's a rule I just made up). There is an audience for everything. Write because you love it, write the way you would want to read it, and write because you enjoy sharing the tale. Consider all, but use what makes the best sense for you. Don't get caught up in the "Rules of Writing". Make your own. Make them work.

Before long, you'll realize all you needed to swim was an ocean. You'll be on your own path not following another's.

<rambling delusions end>

(The above views are not in any sense official. They are still being tested on primate subjects in government facilities and have not been approved for public consumption. Please consider all content to be of figurative construction and taken into the lowest spectrum of good sense.)
 
This is why I prefer the title Storyteller instead of writer. :D

Too many rules for writers. Storytellers just do it the best they can.
 
I'm not sure why, but I am reminded that William Shakespeare turned every rule that he could upon it's head. Most generally seem to agree that it was a rebellion, whether conscious or unconscious, to allow rules from Latin to continue to govern the English language. A few, though, I have heard say he did it to communicate more effectively.

Now, I have not the hubris to think that I am some modern day Shakespeare. Nor Chaucer. Nor Tolstoy. I'm just a horny punk kid wearing a body that still surprises me when I see the marks of age when I accidentally catch a glimpse while passing a mirror who enjoys trying to pen a few words to see if I can make anyone who happens to read them horny. I don't pretend to the title "writer" much less "author" or even "story teller". And I generally enjoy reading the stories someone else has come up with more than my own.

But...

Isn't the true goal of any who place printed words upon a page to communicate in such a way as to pluck an emotional chord within one who choses to read them? Can't ignoring the rules much as an artist who chooses to paint clocks as if they were melting be conveying a message just as truly if it still manages to communicate effectively? Is it possible that certain emotional strings can only be reached by slapping aside bounding rules that would stop outstretched fingers from reaching?
 
I'm not sure why, but I am reminded that William Shakespeare turned every rule that he could upon it's head. Most generally seem to agree that it was a rebellion, whether conscious or unconscious, to allow rules from Latin to continue to govern the English language. A few, though, I have heard say he did it to communicate more effectively.

Now, I have not the hubris to think that I am some modern day Shakespeare. Nor Chaucer. Nor Tolstoy. I'm just a horny punk kid wearing a body that still surprises me when I see the marks of age when I accidentally catch a glimpse while passing a mirror who enjoys trying to pen a few words to see if I can make anyone who happens to read them horny. I don't pretend to the title "writer" much less "author" or even "story teller". And I generally enjoy reading the stories someone else has come up with more than my own.

But...

Isn't the true goal of any who place printed words upon a page to communicate in such a way as to pluck an emotional chord within one who choses to read them? Can't ignoring the rules much as an artist who chooses to paint clocks as if they were melting be conveying a message just as truly if it still manages to communicate effectively? Is it possible that certain emotional strings can only be reached by slapping aside bounding rules that would stop outstretched fingers from reaching?

Aye. Certainly.

I'm suggesting it can go both ways or any way. That nothing is really absolute.

But then... I am pretty crazy.
 
I think the only rule is that a reader (and by no means all readers) shall be informed, entertained, moved, or otherwise changed by reading what is written. And sometimes, that reader is the writer. There are more than a few writers who write to discover what they think.
 
Aye. Certainly.

I'm suggesting it can go both ways or any way. That nothing is really absolute.

But then... I am pretty crazy.

Which more or less sums up where this discussion ultimately stops. There are rules of grammar which are genuine rules, and there are rules of style dictated by various manuals which are authoritative but not absolute, and then there are the rules of writing erotica which are nothing of the sort, but merely the consensus opinion of several vocal posters on a thread. Someone will say "don't do this," or "never use this word," and after several people agree it becomes elevated to RULE status. Those rules don't even rise to guideline status; at best they are mere suggestions of how to write like the person posting or agreeing with the rule.
 
It's been said that every new generation of writers breaks the rules they have been given and many have become greatly admired writers and created a new acceptable style.
This generation is looking for the next big break-out writer who breaks the rules and writes a best seller. Rules are no more than guidelines in most cases so if your story breaks them and it reads better because of it, it wasn't a rule worth adhering to.

I've broken more writing rules than I can count in Blood of the Clans, but readers love it and don't care so I guess I'm writing my own rules. ;)
 
There are rules of grammar which are genuine rules...

I figure once I have followed that one best I can, and then satisfied Laurel's rules, everything else is where the creative juices are allowed to take over and...well...BE creative.

One of the best things I ever heard was that the main reason you learn "the rules" is so you know how to break them properly.
 
I figure once I have followed that one best I can, and then satisfied Laurel's rules, everything else is where the creative juices are allowed to take over and...well...BE creative.

One of the best things I ever heard was that the main reason you learn "the rules" is so you know how to break them properly.

That's true for most processes, experience and philosophy point you to the right place to make changes.

My wife discovered she could freeze fresh okra and later fry it if she battered the okra before she froze it. The okra turns out perfect, crunchy on the outside and tender inside. But she hadda know okra first.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is why I prefer the title Storyteller instead of writer. :D

Too many rules for writers. Storytellers just do it the best they can.

Great post.

I was told a long time ago that crossing the T's and dotting the I's are important. But you can always find someone to help you clean that up.

The true talent is the creative end of things. Can you tell a good story? Can you entertain the reader?

I've seen a lot of stories here where the grammar is shoddy, but wow! What a story! I have also seen stories where the mechanics are good, but I couldn't get through it. Like reading stereo instructions.

No one has ever commented to me (or anyone else I've seen)

"Holy shit! Author, your grasp of punctuation blew me away!"
 
Agree to all.

When I dreamt up the idea for this silly monologue of mine, it was just really to get the flies to stop eating at the fat it had become on my brain.

But I just noticed that a lot of people seem to wanna know how to do it right, and as another poster put it, when enough people get behind a "rule" then it kinda becomes one.

I just don't want anyone to feel discouraged when they wade into the sea of writing, and feel confined by any "this way or that way" sense of reasoning. Good writing can transcend "rules" and make any story great. That doesn't mean write with abandon and disregard all that could help produce quality.

Each must find his own way.

(This is the part where we all hug one nuther.)
 
One thing I've come to realize about all these writing types that are out there is, a writer will never change his style just because someone else said so.

It's not like going to the gym and then listening to how many sets/reps/weight you should do. Anyone can change that.

But if you give someone a bunch of writing types, they'll unwittingly forget it the next day and continue writing the same as before.

Just my opinion.
 
Rules? What Rules.

I get the impression that if one were to write erotica (and almost anything else which is entertaining), it would not be very entertaining. Surely, the whole point of writing is that one can break a few 'Rules' to illustrate a particular point in a story.

Otherwise, it would sound rather formal (legal?) and describe what went on, who said what and so on, but it might not be so much fun!

It's more a question of what Rules you break, when, and how often.

:)
 
No one has ever commented to me (or anyone else I've seen)

"Holy shit! Author, your grasp of punctuation blew me away!"

Interestingly, I have had several such comments. For example: 'A Master of the Comma - If Henry James were alive today, and writing for Literotica, he could not have produced a better story. Thank you. Your technique is flawless.'

And: 'You are an excellent writer and it is a pleasure to read your stories. Your ability with the English language is exceptional. I look forward to reading more of your tales soon.'

I think that you might be surprised just how many readers there are out there who appreciate a bit of old-fashioned craft with their smut. :)
 
Folks are nursed on stories from almost the beginning, by the time we graduate school we know how to write stories. But we don't, mostly cuz our lives are boring and we have nuthin to add to the collective wisdom. That is, we're lazy and dum. There's no cure for either.
 
I think the only rule is that a reader (and by no means all readers) shall be informed, entertained, moved, or otherwise changed by reading what is written. And sometimes, that reader is the writer. There are more than a few writers who write to discover what they think.

That works for me, too.

I've always believed that there is one cardinal rule for writing: write in such a way that it is impossible for the reader not to understand what you're trying to say. All the rest, as they say, is commentary.

As for TxRad's comment, I think that storytellers are under the same constraint. If the listeners are confused about the story the storyteller is telling, then the storyteller's art is lacking something.

The only exception in both cases is, of course, when the writer or storyteller is deliberately misleading the audience, for greater dramatic effect. In that case, the audience's realization that they were misled is part of the fun, if their patience hasn't been overly taxed and the writer/storyteller makes the effect worth the vexation.
 
That works for me, too.

I've always believed that there is one cardinal rule for writing: write in such a way that it is impossible for the reader not to understand what you're trying to say. All the rest, as they say, is commentary.

As for TxRad's comment, I think that storytellers are under the same constraint. If the listeners are confused about the story the storyteller is telling, then the storyteller's art is lacking something.

The only exception in both cases is, of course, when the writer or storyteller is deliberately misleading the audience, for greater dramatic effect. In that case, the audience's realization that they were misled is part of the fun, if their patience hasn't been overly taxed and the writer/storyteller makes the effect worth the vexation.

Exactly. I read a book of non-fiction stories by Joel Chandler Harris, and all of them had gags at the end, tho they weren't funny. They were real and clever and unexpected. In one of the tales a black man encounters a procession of white men headed for the Capital of Georgia about 1800. Everyone knew, liked, and admired the black man, who was a genuine hero of the Revolution. He asked consent to join them, and was approved on one condition: he must ride far enough behind the others so that no one would get the idea he was part of the procession. The men complained the whole way about having to stay at taverns and sleep 3 to a bed.

At the capital they collided with the governor and exchanged greetings. The party bid the black man to go on ahead but the governor told the black man to remain. As the party broke up the governor told the black man to come on to his house, he had a room prepared for him and he needed to get washed up for supper. The black man had saved the governor's life during the war.
 
Back
Top