Sadly to say, the topic turned into a discussion of weather reports, and, I fear, missed the point of my article.
Anyway, I'm revisiting the article this time, in hopes that we can have a discussion of how to approach ANY kind of writing advice you may have been given--not just the example I gave in the article.
So, please, read the article, and then, can we talk about writers' reality checks and not about the weather?
Compare, crappy example but to be obvious about it:
quote:
It was raining. I was wet to the skin.
Yeah, so you're wet, who cares, go whine to someone else.
vs
quote:
If it keeps raining like this, we'll all drown.
At least there's a question here... will we drown literally or figuratively? with luck, the reader will want to find out.
I think newer writers (like myself) might consider heeding more closely to professional advice. For example, if an editor said, "don't write in the second person," it would probably be good advice to follow. An accomplished (multi-published) author may have greater flexibility to break the rules after showing he (she) understands the rules.
I guess each rule can and should be handled differently.
What about for the 5% where it does work? Was it still good advice? I say ‘yes’ because what you are really saying is that the odds aren’t good. Even if you happen to beat those odds, the odds still weren’t good. Especially when we are young, we are so sure that those stats are made up of everybody else. That won’t happen to me.
I humbly submit that new writers are ‘young’ writers no matter how old we are. As such we should take the advice we are given gratefully, although most of us will buck it anyway. I’ve usually had to make my own mistakes in life as well as writing. I’m a “learn things the hard way” kind of kid. Oh well. It does mean that I have lots of my own advice to offer about stuff that just doesn’t seem to work out the way I wanted it to.
*(I have absolutely no idea what the real odds actually are. I just posited this as an example.)
So anytime (and I mean ANYTIME!) someone gives you advice that doesn't fit with what you are trying to do in your story, it's a good idea to do a writers' reality check and see if that advice fits the stories that
1--do the kinds of things you are trying to do in your story
or
2--are stories that you like and would like to emulate.
If the advice fits, then maybe you need to think about your own story some more and see why the advice doesn't fit what you are trying to do.
If the advice doesn't fit, you can probably disregard it.
But you really ought to do some homework to make sure, before you either change your story or disregard the advice.
And this applies to advice about plotting, about word choices, about characterization, about description, about starting stories, about ending stories, about setting, about dialog, and so on and so forth.
As others have pointed out, following how-to writing advice/"the rules" can be helpful and practical when starting out, but I think the approach described is less about rule-breaking and more about understanding why the particular piece of advice is given. After all the work of examination you may still follow the "rule" 99% of the time, but you will be doing so because it makes sense to you, not just because it's a rule. In other instances you may find the advice does not apply to your situation (writing style, genre, personal taste, particular story etc).
Edit: we must have been writing at the same time KDW
[This message has been edited by Ethereon (edited February 21, 2011).]
However, on weather. (This is not trolling please read it). What if the weather is used constructively. As in I am currently using a storm cloud as a major piece of foreshadowing in my book. In Terry Brooks's The Sword of Shannara (whoop whoop for the oldy) there is a brilliant description of weather. It isnt early in the book but it begins a chapter and is quite important and very well done. Could the problem be that writers dont use the weather correctly?
The results were disastrous. My stories became so horrible watered down to keep everyone happy (and I never kept EVERYONE happy) that soon I discovered I needed a middle ground.
When it comes to critiques, it is up to the Author to know what they can use and what they have to discard.
I think all too often aspiring writers seem to think that professional writers can get away with breaking the "rules" just because they are professional writers. Maybe that happens sometimes, but more likely professional writers get away with it because they have the skill to pull it off.
Anything can be done if the writer has the skill and a good reason for doing it.
I am a firm believer in learning the "rules" but not strickly following them. Most of the "rules" are in place because they are commonly abused by beginning writers. I've certainly done my share.
I do believe that looking at publications that worked or didn't work for you is the best way to determine why the "rules" are in place and when and how they can be broken. And in a more broader sense, what works and doesn't work for you in all aspects of story telling.
I'm just recently dipping into the pond of being critiqued, and it is difficult to determine what advice to listen to and what to discard.
There are some things that are obvious. I'm either embarrassed that I didn't see them myself, or I know won't work for the story I am trying to tell. But there is always that middle ground that is so hard to know what to do. So thanks for the article, hopefully it will help me sort through them.
[This message has been edited by MAP (edited February 22, 2011).]
Quote: "It's more of guidelines."
(CJ writes it all in caps, so I do too