Forum: Author Hangout

At this moment there is only the one literary rule for SoL - write in English.

And I'm all in favor of the 'write English language stories in English' technique! :)

However, the term "Rules" tends to crop up in virtually every extended SOL Author's Forum discussion, which is where many of our protracted arguments originate.

It's a wonder with SOL being based in Canada that Lazeez isn't required to post the site in English and French.

Note: Post should have been a response to Ernest.

Note: Post should have been a response to Ernest.

That's fine. I don't mind being acknowledged, even if it's accidental.

However, the term "Rules" tends to crop up in virtually every extended SOL Author's Forum discussion, which is where many of our protracted arguments originate.

That's because today we have different rules apply to different countries and different industries and all of the proponents for each claim there's is the only true rule set.

The we also have the sub-groups in each of the above where the rules are different for the various forms of English: formal, academic, government, business, informal, and colloquial. Even within those sub-groups you get variants as the form for an assignment essay in college English is often different to that for an assignment essay in physics due to the needs of the subject matter.

However, the term "Rules" tends to crop up in virtually every extended SOL Author's Forum discussion, which is where many of our protracted arguments originate.

The arguments occur because to many it's either black or white.

What if I prefer to write English stories in Murican?

Hey, accented dialogue is 'just another' technique. :)

At this moment there is only the one literary rule for SoL - write in English.

There's a second one — no sex with a character under 14 years old.

At this moment there is only the one literary rule for SoL - write in English.

There's a second one — no sex with a character under 14 years old

(i.e. No, frenching coal minors.

At this moment there is only the one literary rule for SoL - write in English.

No. That is site rule. Lazeez doesn't ban garbage from the site. That doesn't mean that there aren't literary rules.

Aaarg! Did you not read the topic title when you first read it weeks ago? At least say that there are 'standards', if you insist on everyone always using formal English structures.

@bk69:

Nobody. Those in need of help, particularly of the psychiatric variety such as all y'all need, seldom 'want' it. The crazy often prefer their delusions.

As I've long noted, it's not that 'crazy' people are ALL delusional, it's that the Creative Arts, in particular, are predominately composed of people with various mental conditions, as the field gives them greater freedom than a traditional 9 to 5 job punching a time clock.

I bake my own. PB Chocolate chip most recently. (I alternate with Chocolate chip oatmeal. Throw in molasses cookies on occasion.

OK, everyone, you heard him. Our next crazy-person bash will officially be held at his place. Hope you can feed a houseful of insanely hungry people!

As an example, the classic "Show don't tell". As stated this is in an absolute form.

Sorry, but "show don't tell" does not mean "show always and never tell." It's an expression or idiom that writers of fiction understand. Those 3 words are not to be taken literally (as an absolute).

Too many 'writing experts' try to overcomplicate the process of writing English in an attempt to sell courses or books, and make it seem as though English can only written by a professional elite.

The book that inspired my post is an excellent example. The title and author were both flat out lies, and though, yes, I often tend to use definitive articles when making a point, it's my enthusiasm which fuels it, not my stridency. Perhaps D.S. would appreciate the book, as it doesn't make a single enthusiastic statement or opinion in the entire book, and you're left thinking 'so, why bother if nothing makes any difference!'

If you don't feel strongly about what you're writing, there's no friggin' reason to write (other than to keep your hands busy), so if I get a little carried away, making a point, most are able to grasp my underlying message, where you (DS) seem to be continually infuriated by my every utterance. As I tell readers who insist that everything I write grates on their nerves, 'maybe you should avoid my posts in the future, then'.

I'll admit, I'm human, and prone to exaggeration and hyperbole (that's why I depend on editors, to tone my excesses). But boring kills more stories than excessive enthusiasm ever has.

And, please, let's not get into a tit-for-tate exchange over what I did or didn't once say, because no matter what I concede, or insist I didn't mean, there's no way I'll ever convince you.

A discussion, where one party continually rants at the other, may as well occur in one's closet with a party of one.

A discussion, where one party continually rants at the other, may as well occur in one's closet with a party of one.

Ooh, alone in a closet with the person I love most ;-)

AJ

No, what I want is to understand the why behind things.

Creative Writing is a Liberal Art, not a Science. It's all about technique, not hard-fast rules. I've tried to explain the why whenever I discussed a technique (as best I could).

Like with "don't use adverbs." Stephen King wrote "the road to hell is paved with adverbs" yet when I read "The Green Mile" it was filled with adverbs. I thought him a hypocrite because I took his comment literally. But the more I studied what that expression meant, the more I understood his intent.

Adverbs aren't bad when used in the right situation. But sometimes they are needed because the writing is bad. The adverb isn't bad. Why the adverb is needed is bad. They may be attached to a weak verb rather than using a stronger, more descriptive verb. They may be used with a dialogue tag to inform the reader rather than not using the adverb and showing instead of telling which will engage the reader, have him experience what the adverb is telling him.

And that's what current genre fiction is all about. Engaging the reader. Letting the reader experience what the characters are experiencing. Which is what "show don't tell" is all about.

Let's take head-hopping. I studied it and read all the rules. Yes, rules of what head-hopping is. I struggled as an author to not break those rules (remember, my first novel was rejected with the comment "show don't tell and don't head-hop"). There were times I thought I would go back to writing in omniscient because I couldn't create the suspense I strived for without telling the reader something the POV character didn't know. And then I read traditionally published bestselling thrillers. Guess what? They head-hopped. But in a way that wasn't jarring to the reader. That's what "don't head-hop" really means.

So there are ways to bend the "rules" because they aren't black and white rules. Again, creative writing is not a science.

Hell, punctuation does have rules. Yet I purposefully leave off commas that the punctuation rules say must be there. I do it because I don't want the choppiness commas cause when the reader is reading a sentence. That's my style. But I know the comma is supposed to be there. I simply elect not to put it in. In college, it would be marked wrong in an English Grammar class, but not in a Creative Writing class.

This is better. It would in my opinion be stronger on it's own without the initial appeal to authority.

I've never understood why a vanilla verb enhanced by an adverb is supposed to be bad writing while a vanilla noun enhanced by an adjective is supposed to be good writing.

AJ

I don't understand why minimalist verbiage in general is supposed to be better. Yes, excessive verbosity makes for bad writing, but in my opinion, best is somewhere in the middle. Neither too much nor too little.

Again, 'minimalist verbiage' is neither good, nor bad, it's just another tool. If used too broadly, you end up with thoroughly unengaging stories, but used too rarely, you end up with excessive story bloat. They key is knowing when to use the technique so it's most effective.

I've never understood why a vanilla verb enhanced by an adverb is supposed to be bad writing while a vanilla noun enhanced by an adjective is supposed to be good writing.

Verbs bring a story to life.

Verbs bring a story to life.

In my opinion, the grammatical distinction between nouns and verbs is arbitrary - nouns name objects, verbs name actions, and there are many instances of the same word serving both purposes. To claim one is more important than the other is just as arbitrary.

AJ

, verbs name actions

And that's why verbs bring a story to life. It's why they say not to use passive voice. You want your characters doing (verb) stuff, not having stuff done to them.

If you think "ran quickly from the room" has the same impact as "bolted from the room," use the adverb.

As to nouns, that's apples and oranges. I guess you can say "the giant walked into the room" instead of "the tall man walked into the room" but isn't that more a metaphor? Not much you can do with nouns. The adjectives add description.

I've never understood why a vanilla verb enhanced by an adverb is supposed to be bad writing while a vanilla noun enhanced by an adjective is supposed to be good writing.

weak verbs tend affect a story's overall quality more than a weak noun. A noun is a noun (i.e. merely a 'name'), whereas the verb captures what's happening.

Nothing vanilla is good.

Balderdash! Poppycock!

Vanilla is so good that demand exceeds supply and there's a world shortage. Food manufacturers are having to resort to artificial vanilla substitutes ;-)

AJ

but then Madagascar got hit with Covid19

I blame Disney, going there to film its cartoons ;-)

AJ

Nothing vanilla is good.

except ice cream.

Creative Writing is a Liberal Art, not a Science.

This is true, but nothing in that statement makes why irrelevant.

Because science has hard and fast rules.

That Creative writing does not have hard and fast rules does not make the why behind the rules (of creative writing) unimportant or irrelevant.

Yet, continually insisting that there are universal rules keeps tripping authors up. It's not what you do, but how you implement the techniques.

In my opinion, why you should implement this technique and not that one matters as least as much as how well you implement it.

Absolutely!

In fact, if you implement it well but in the wrong situation it's bad.

Because science has hard and fast rules.

Except, that's the major failing of 'Western' scientific training, as the 'hard and fast' rules are often wrong, and is continually being undermined by inconvenient 'facts' which have to be explained away.

Appeals to authority are not a valid response to "why?".

I wasn't appealing to authority. In fact, I think King is a lousy writer. Great storyteller, but I dislike his writing. What I was referring to was the difference between what he said and what he meant.

Adverbs aren't bad when used in the right situation. But sometimes they are needed because the writing is bad. The adverb isn't bad. Why the adverb is needed is bad. They may be attached to a weak verb rather than using a stronger, more descriptive verb. They may be used with a dialogue tag to inform the reader rather than not using the adverb and showing instead of telling which will engage the reader, have him experience what the adverb is telling him.

That's why, rather than the overly broad 'all adverbs are bad!', it's better to focus on the technique of replacing -ly adjectives with active 'power' words. Just being aware that most of those problems result from using weak verbs helps to resolve most of the problems.

Looking at my more recent works, I often go for pages without using a single -ly adjective. It's not that I'm avoiding them, but after a while, you get better at picked the correct words. (AutoCrit.com recently added a new feature, where it examines an author's use of 'power' words, and surprisingly, my stories are chocked full of them, when I hadn't a clue wtf they even were.)

Creative Writing is a Liberal Art,

I love creative writing, except when some idiot applies it to history or science.

I love creative writing, except when some idiot applies it to history or science.

Before I started writing, my creative writing was limited to filling out expense vouchers after a business trip.

I am trying to change on that. Is it really too much for me to ask you to meet me halfway?

Not when I offer an olive branch, and you attack me for repeatedly using 'absolutist' terms, when you do the exact same with me (picking apart entire discussion by selecting the most out of context element).

there are also writers who specifically state that they write only for their own enjoyment and couldn't care about readers might think or even if they have readers at all.

If that were true their stories would be on their personal hard drive and nowhere else. They wouldn't post it if they didn't expect/want people to read it.

If you want to complain to suggest that my story might get a wider audience if I left out/removed certain content, I don't care and you can shove your complaints where the sun doesn't shine.

I trust we can all relate to that!

Perhaps they do like to be 'part of the community' while not really being concerned with what someone thinks of their writing.

Despite what they claim, no one likes criticism, and when it's something you invest a LOT of time on, and you pour your heart out, having someone demean it, just for often questionable reasons, is frustrating. Thus 'I don't care' essentially translates as 'bugger off, dimwit!'

I dare to say no two authors are the same.

Wayzgoose and aroslav are the same ;-)

AJ

Despite what they claim, no one likes criticism

All criticism is helpful, though I prefer constructive criticism and thoughtful critique to 'this sucks'. But, if 'this sucks' is a proper expression of the person's opinion, they're free to express it to me or in public. It's the 'price of freedom', as it were.

As I see it, we writers here should be the most vocal supporters of maximal free speech, as our subject matter is more at risk than any other (claims about 'cancel culture' notwithstanding).

Generally, my response will be to ask the person 'Why?' or invite a conversation. My work improves from it. If they don't want to answer, that's up to them. I have a thick skin, so if they just want to say that my work is shite, that's their prerogative.

TL;DR - I like criticism in all forms, and welcome it.

The question then is why use up space on SOL, if they don't want anyone to read it?

They say the same thing about writers who write, but who can't get published via the large mainstream publishers, according to the naysayers, if you don't get enough income to justify the time spent it's essentially 'literary masturbation'. Sure, it's fun to do, but it's more enjoyable when you know someone's watching.

From my point of view, the whole point of self-publishing is to express and convey ideas, rather than selling the most books. By that logic, you'll convince more people if your books are relatively painless to read.

If the POV chances from first person to third and back a few times in the first few paragraphs, that tells me the author is careless or never reads his own writing.

Or, they simply have no clue what they're doing.